Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Colwyn Bay Urban District. Council Bill [Lords],

Margate Corporation Bill [Lords],

Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation (Freemen) Bill [Lords],

Eastbourne Corporation Bill [Lords],

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Worcester Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),

London Electric and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill (by Order),

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended until the Summer Adjournment.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.

Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.

Ordered, That,, when it is intended to propose Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords.]

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PRINTING AND STATIONERY DEPARTMENT (BOMBAY GOVERNMENT).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of Bombay with a view to the Indianisation of the printing and stationery department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My Noble Friend has no information on the subject. The matter is one for the Government of Bombay, by which the Department in question is controlled.

WOMEN FACTORY INSPECTORS.

Colonel DAY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of women inspectors employed by the Government of India under the Factory Acts?

Earl WINTERTON: Factory inspectors are appointed by local Governments. Definite information regarding the number of women inspectors is not available, but will be obtained.

Colonel DAY: How many factories in this province were not inspected last year by these Government inspectors?

Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman has not indicated, either in the question or in his supplementary, to what province he is referring, perhaps he will put a question down.

ANDAMANS (COLONISATION).

Mr. SCURR: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the views of the Government of India on the Report of the Andamans Colonisation Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have received a report from the Indian gentlemen who visited the Andamans last December to see for themselves conditions in the Mappilla villages, but I cannot state the result of their consideration of the report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Committee still being continued?

Earl WINTERTON: The question does not relate to that. It deals with a

IMPORTS INTO AND EXPORTS FROM INDIA OF GOLD AND SILVER COIN AND BULLION.


Year.
Gold.
Silver.


Imports.
Exports.
Net Imports.
Imports.
Exports.
Net Imports.




Fine ounces.Fine ounces.
Fine ounces.
Standard ounces.
Standard ounces.
Standard ounces.




(a) On Private Account.


1923–24
…
4,329,248
9,892
4,319,356
106,640,579
14,558,616
92,081,963


1921–25
…
12,024,013
58,792
11,965,221
122,252,985
19,961,700
102,291,285


1925–26
…
6,201,513
65,934
6,135,579
108,180,111
14,715,118
93,464,993


(b) On Government Account.


1923–24
…
—
—
—
1,195,966
19,872
1,176,094


1924–25
…
—
—
—
76,398
13,524
62,874


1925–26
…
—
—
—
166,540
267,779
101,239*


* Net Export.

specific matter. If the right hon. Gentleman wants information on the wider question, perhaps he will put a question down.

MADRAS AND BENGAL COUNCILS (LABOUR REPRESENTATION).

Mr. SCURR: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to allocate seats for labour representatives on the Councils of Madras and Bengal?

Earl WINTERTON: In the Madras Council there are at present no special seats for labour, and it is not proposed to create any, but it is proposed to increase the special representation for the depressed classes from five seats to 10. The Bengal Council has at present two labour seats, and it is proposed to add one for the depressed classes.

BULLION (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. ALBERY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what amounts India have taken in gold and silver bullion during the last three years?

Earl WINTERTON: As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

WINDWARD AND LEEWARD ISLANDS. STEAMSHIP COMMUNICATIONS.

Mr. HURD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received information from the Windward and Leeward Islands that their steamship communications with the outside world are now restricted to a single unpunctual monthly freighter without cold-storage capacity; and whether, as this isolation is affecting the school and medical necessities of the islands, remedial measures can be taken through the Imperial Economic Committee or in any other way?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am aware that the subsidised steamship service hitherto operated by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company between Canada and the Colonies mentioned has been withdrawn, and replaced by a service of the nature indicated. The question was considered by the recent West Indian Conference, and a resolution passed by that Conference has been transmitted to the Government of Canada. As my hon. Friend is aware, the agreement concluded at Ottawa in 1925 between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the West Indian and other Colonies provided in Article IX for steamship services to the Windward and Leeward Islands, and pending the establishment of such services I do not consider that there is any further action which I could usefully take in the matter.

Mr. HURD: Cannot something be done in the matter of assisting this movement in connection with the Imperial Economic Committee?

Mr. AMERY: Arrangements have been entered into, and we ought to wait and see if they come to fruition.

BARBADOS (CODRINGTON COLLEGE).

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information from the Government of the Barbados as to the inauguration of a fund for the rebuilding of Codrington College, recently destroyed by fire?

Mr. AMERY: I understand from the Governor that the Board of Governors of
Codrington College are proceeding with the collection of subscriptions locally towards a fund for rebuilding, and that a wider appeal is under consideration.

Sir G. BUTLER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to make that appeal better known?

Mr. AMERY: As soon as they have decided what form the appeal should take, I shall be glad to support it.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

KILINDINI (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the weight and value of the total exports and imports shipped at the port of Kilindini in the last years for which statistics are available; and can he give the total port dues or landing charges paid during the same period towards the cost of Kilindini port and harbour?

Mr. AMERY: Excluding bullion and specie, the value of imports in 1924 was £7,570,502 and of exports £7,653,554. The bill of lading tonnage was, for imports, 220,333 tons and, for exports, 259,326 tons. I have chosen 1924, as my information as to tonnage is incomplete for 1925. The revenue accruing to Government from light dues, pilotage, port dues, and cranage charges at Kilindini Pier was £34,061 in 1924 and £51,909 in 1925.

NATIVE LABOUR.

Mr. GILLETT: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the most recent figures showing the number of natives employed in Kenya on road-making and the building of railways; and what proportion of such labour is voluntary?

Mr. AMERY: In March, 1926, 9,539 natives were engaged on railway construction in Kenya, all voluntary labourers, and I have no reason to suppose that any compulsory labour is being employed by the Kenya Government on road construction.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is labour employed on the roads in the reserves not by the Government but by the chiefs of the reserves?

Mr. AMERY: Yes; in the reserves there is a certain amount of labour for purely communal purposes employed in the manner indicated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is compulsory?

Mr. AMERY: It is compulsory.

MILITARY SERVICE.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Military Service Bill for Kenya contains any provision for the exemption of those who object to military service on religious or other grounds?

Mr. AMERY: There is no express provision of this kind, but ministers of any recognised denomination are to be deemed to be enrolled in their professional capacity only, and the Governor has absolute discretion to exempt any person from service.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a Clause providing for conscientious objection is inserted?

Mr. AMERY: I think we must trust the local Government to frame its legislation in accordance with local needs.

Mr. SMITH: Why has it been deemed necessary to introduce conscription after the Colony has managed so many years on the voluntary principle?

RAILWAYS.

Mr. SMITH: 14.
also asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present mileage of railways in Kenya; of this, what is the amount actually laid in native reserve territory; and what is the cost per mile for passenger traffic for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans?

Mr. AMERY: The mileage open at the end of 1925 was 971 miles. On the second point, I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 13th April. I understand the last part of the question to relate to passenger fares. My information is not recent, but apparently the standard fares are 36 cents of a shilling first class and 18 cents of a shilling second class. The third-class fares per mile diminish as the distance increases; for example, for 100 miles, 6¼ cents a mile, and for 500 miles, 4¾ cents a mile. The difference between rates is according to class, not according to race.

COLONIES (GRANTS-IN-AID).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the amount of the Grants-in-Aid for Palestine, Kenya, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Tanganyika, respectively, for 1924–25, 1925–26, and 1926–27?

Mr. AMERY: As the information required by my hon. Friend is of a statistical character, I propose, with his consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Palestine.




£


1924–25

197,000


1925–26

212,000


1926–27
(estimated)
108,000


Kenya and Uganda.


Nil.


Northern Rhodesia.




£


1924–25

138,000


1925–26

100,000


1926–27
(estimated)
50,000


Nyasaland.




£


1924–25

95,400


1925–26

110,000


1926–27
(estimated)
140,000


Tanganyika.




£


1924–25

350,000


1925–26

350,000


1926–27

Nil.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

DOMINION LOANS (TRUSTEE ACT).

Sir F. WISE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will place on the agenda for the discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference the suspension of the Trustee Act, 1900, as regards the Dominion loans for a period of three years, owing to the British Government's large conversion loans falling due during the next three years?

Mr. AMERY: Certainly not.

Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this suggestion might have a very injurious
effect on future Empire development generally?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise that this suggestion has not come from the Labour Party?

Mr. AMERY: I shall be very glad to credit the Labour party with that.

BRITISH GOODS (EXCISE DUTY).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received representations regarding the method adopted by certain Dominions of assessing the value for Customs purposes of British goods subject to Excise Duty; and whether the question will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

DATE OF MEETING.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether there has been any alteration in the date proposed for the meeting of the Imperial Conference; and whether, if any postponement is necessary, he will consider holding a conference devoted to economic questions alone on the original date, the political conference only being postponed?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is now the intention to delay the date of the meeting of the Imperial Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I hope to be able to make a statement in the course of the next few days.

NATIVE RACES.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can announce what place is to be given to discussion on the position of the native races in the overseas Colonies and Dominions at the Imperial Conference in October?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked by the Prime Minister to answer this ques-
tion. I do not anticipate that any discussion on the subject will take place at the Imperial Conference.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. R. SMITH: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of the present Government to encourage emigration of British people to Rhodesia and Kenya?

Mr. AMERY: As regards Kenya and Northern Rhodesia, the question of emigration in the ordinary sense does not arise. It is certainly no part of the policy of the Government to discourage the settlement of suitable British people, but it is primarily for the local Government to consider how far and under what conditions they should be encouraged. In the case of Southern Rhodesia, a land settlement scheme under the Empire Settlement Act has been entered into with the Southern Rhodesia Government.

Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the introduction of compulsory military service will encourage British people to go out there?

Mr. AMERY: I have no evidence that any large proportion of those who emigrate to the Empire in any case are conscientious objectors.

Colonel DAY: Are not group settlements being encouraged in Rhodesia?

Mr. AMERY: Not that I am aware.

Colonel DAY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of group settlements now in operation in Australia?

Mr. AMERY: The only group settlement scheme at present in operation is the Western Australia scheme which was described in a Report (Cmd. 2673) published last month. The number of groups formed under this scheme up to the present is 135.

BRITISH HONDURAS (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Colony of British Honduras has found it necessary to
abandon the formation of an Agricultural Department owing to lack of funds; and whether, in view of the importance of such a Department in the development of that colony, any assistance can be given for that purpose from the Imperial Exchequer?

Mr. AMERY: Suggestions for the formation of an Agricultural Department in British Honduras received consideration some years ago but were not proceeded with owing to the financial stringency then existing. Since that date a large and active Forestry Department has been constituted; and having regard to all the local needs and circumstances, I do not consider the necessity for an Agricultural Department to be so pressing as to justify an appeal to the Imperial Exchequer.

TANGANYIKA (GERMAN SUBJECTS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of German subjects who have now returned to Tanganyika; and whether any of these have been given assistance from reparations moneys?

Mr. AMERY: I have not received any report on this subject from the Governor.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: When the right hon. Gentleman has the Report, will he let us know whether any of these Germans are, as suggested in the latter part of the question, getting any assistance out of the reparations which should come to this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH TRADE, RUMANIA.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the present position of British trade with Rumania; and whether, seeing that the latter country is of great potential wealth and recovering from after-War difficulties, any efforts are being made to indicate openings for trade to the commercial community?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Exports from the United Kingdom to Rumania have gradually increased each year for the last few years, while imports from Rumania have remained fairly steady. Openings for British trade in Rumania are constantly being brought to the notice of United Kingdom manufacturers in the course of the ordinary work of the Department.

SCOTTISN DYES.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Scottish Dyes, a subsidised company, have sold their patent rights to manufacture jade green on the Continent to the Interessen Gemeinschaft, in Germany; and whether he is aware that this new colour is being sold by the Interessen Gemeinschaft on the Continent at considerably less price that Scottish Dyes are selling it in this country?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am informed that Scottish Dyes, Limited, have licensed the Interessen Gemeinschaft to manufacture jade green, but I have no information as to the price of this dyestuff on the Continent.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the few brilliant things that Scottish Dyes have accomplished, and that by the sale of it to the German combine the export of our cloth to the Continent has been absolutely stopped, with the result that there is unemployment in Lancashire?

Sir B. CHADWICK: If the hon. Member will give me detailed particulars, I will look into the matter.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: What is the purpose of having a Dyestuffs Act to build up a dyestuffs industry in this country, if the persons so protected then sell their rights to the Continent?

Sir B. CHADWICK: This is purely a matter of a jade green.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK POOL (GENERAL STRIKE).

Mr. HURD: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what sum is still unpaid for milk sent to the milk pool during the general strike; and what steps are being taken to expedite payment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. Since the 19th June the Milk Pool Accounts Department have paid 5,070 accounts, of the total sum of £213,000, leaving approximately £30,000 unpaid. I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to pay the remaining accounts, received from farmers, by the end of this month.

EGGS (GRADING).

Mr. WRIGHT: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that there are no official standards in the London market for the grading of eggs and no official definition of what is a first-grade egg, he will take steps to frame an official standard?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (for The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware that there are no official grades for eggs in this country. The subject was dealt with in a Report on Egg Marketing which was recently issued in the Ministry's Economic Series of publications, and certain grades were suggested for consideration. As soon as my right hon. Friend has the views of representative organisations of producers and distributors on these proposals, he will consider what steps can usefully be taken.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has there not always been a different price for eggs, fresh eggs and new-laid eggs?

ALLOTMENTS, HOUNSLOW.

Mr. WRIGHT: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a group of allotment holders at Hounslow have received notice to quit their holdings by 21st August, and will he grant them an extension of time in order to gather their crops?

Sir H. BARNSTON: The allotments in question are not under my right hon. Friend's control, but inquiry has been made, and it has been arranged through the local allotments authority that the owner of the land will allow the tenants to remain undisturbed until the 30th September, 1926, unless he is able to come to a voluntary arrangement in the meantime for an earlier quitting on compensation being paid by him

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Health how many women over 70 years of age have applied for old age pensions during the first six months of 1926; and how many have been granted and how many refused?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information can be obtained at an early date?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid not, because the figures of men and women are not kept.

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. PALIN: 28.
asked the Minister of Health what number of casual wards in various parts of the country have been closed within the past two years; and whether, in view of the over-crowding in the remaining casual wards and the long distances between one casual ward and another, it is possible to make adequate provision for persons applying to such wards, in view of their statutory right to receive bed and board for the immediate relief of their destitution?

Mr. GRUNDY: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the frequent closing of casual wards throughout the country, while at the same time conditions of serious overcrowding are reported in numerous casual wards; whether he will institute an inquiry into the sufficiency or otherwise of the accommodation throughout the country for persons desiring to use the casual wards; and, if it be found that such acommodation is insufficient, will he take steps to prevent the further closing of casual wards and, if necessary, to secure their re-opening in certain areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The total number of casual wards in England and Wales closed in the last two years is 12. In every case the possible effect of such closing on the casual wards of neighbouring unions was fully considered before permission to close was given As my right hon. Friend
recently informed the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, boards of guardians have been required to re-open casual wards which have been closed, or to build new or extended wards wherever it seemed desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. GILLETT: 30.
asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated additional cost per week imposed on the boards of guardians as the result of the present coal stoppage, and its effect upon other industries?

Sir K. WOOD: Complete information is not available, but my right hon. Friend estimates the increased weekly cost to boards of guardians at approximately £300,000.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCE AND LOSSES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information as to the disturbance and loss in the other industries of the country which have been caused by the coal stoppage?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The figures of unemployment in various industries, published monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, furnish some indication of the effect on other industries of the stoppage of coal mining. It is not possible, on the information at present available, to give any precise estimate of the aggregate loss to the country as a whole; but the loss in production through unemployment may be estimated as not less than £100,000,000. If the unavoidable reduction in the activity of those recorded as employed is taken into account, the total loss in the period since 30th April may reach £150,000,000, or even a larger sum. These figures include the losses suffered by the coal mining industry (which may be estimated at about £40,000,000) and those caused by the general strike.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the hon. Member—I know he has given considerable study to this question—how his figures coincide with those of the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman)?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have made an examination of the figures of the right hon. Member for West Swansea. I say—subject to correction—that I think he has reckoned some things twice over, and left out certain things. I think he has put the figures in some cases too high, and in some cases too low. The general result of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, £160,000,000, comes out within £10,000,000 of the figure which I have given in my answer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to allow the House of Commons to adjourn for several months while the mining dispute is still in progress?

The PRIME MINISTER: If, unfortunately, the mining dispute still remains unsettled, it will be necessary to summon Parliament at the end of each month in order to ask the House to pass a fresh Resolution continuing the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that reply that the Government have absolutely abdicated their functions as a Government; and, if that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider doing the honourable thing, resign and allow some other Government to take his place?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, if the mining dispute is still on, summoning Parliament a day earlier in order to discuss a way out of the difficulty?

Mr. BATEY: Does the Prime Minister propose to continue his present policy of starving the miners for months and months?

IMPORTS (PREVENTION).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain British citizens have recently visited Continental capitals with the avowed object of preventing the export of coal to Great Britain which is urgently needed for essential services for the maintenance of the industries of the country; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Emergency Regulations expressly prohibit any person from doing anything calculated to impede or restrict
the supply of fuel to British nationals, he will inform the House what action is being taken in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir; but the Emergency Regulations do not apply abroad and no action is being taken.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do not the Emergency Regulations apply to British citizens who endeavour to injure their country and cause unemployment, by actions abroad; when they return home has not the right hon. Gentleman power to deal with them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been advised that the Emergency Regulations do not apply to British citizens in respect of actions committed abroad.

Mr. T. SHAW: Might I suggest to Members of the Cabinet that they should advise the British people to buy British goods and not German coal?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If a man engages in treason against the State abroad, can he be prosecuted when he comes here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must ask for notice of that question. In any case, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that treason is a particular and different offence.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider framing a Regulation to deal with these cases when the Emergency Regulations are brought forward again?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider it, but I must be guided by my legal advisers.

TREASURY BILLS (RATE OF DISCOUNT).

Mr. GILLETT: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the average rate at which Treasury bills have been allotted during the period covered by the present coal stoppage; and what would have been the actual saving to the nation if the bills could have been discounted at 1 per cent. below the rate at which they were sold?

Mr. McNEILL: The average rate has been £4 7s. 3d. A reduction of 1 per
cent, in the rate of discount would have reduced the cost by a little over £1,000,000.

MINERS' DEPENDANTS (RELIEF).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any communication regarding the conclusions reached by the Lichfield Board of Guardians at its meeting on Friday, 23rd July, on the question of the continuance or non-continuance of out-relief for miners' wives and children?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is informed that the guardians resolved to continue to relieve the wives and children of strikers. He is taking steps to obtain further information.

Mr. GREENWOOD: At what scale will relief continue to be given?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries to-day.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not a fact that, according to the Press, the scale is to be half the normal scale?

Mr. T. SHAW: May I ask whether a man who has ceased work because his employer has ceased to continue his contract is a striker?

Sir K. WOOD: In reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), I believe there was a report to that effect but my right hon. Friend desires to obtain the exact facts.

Mr. SHAW: May I repeat my question? Is it in order for a Minister to state that a man who has ceased worked because his employer has stopped a contract is a striker?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are inclined to mix up strikes and other disputes.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the new scale operate during the present week? Relief given as late as Friday last for the following week is at the quarter rate?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say. My right hon. Friend is making inquiries to-day?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman visit the Cannock Chase area with me?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 32.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Land Court, on page 6 of their Report for 1925, on the question of the resumption of small holdings by purchasers for the purpose of residence thereon; and whether, in view of these remarks and the cases which have occurred since at Aberdeen and elsewhere, he will reconsider his refusal to introduce legislation on the subject?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on the 4th May.

COTTAGE HOLDINGS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 33.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that legislation has been introduced with the object of enabling agricultural labourers in England and Wales to acquire cottages and areas of ground to cultivate in addition to their earnings, he is yet in a position to state what steps will be taken to afford similar or corresponding facilities to Scottish farm servants to increase their earnings?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to his question on the 6th July on this subject. I am of opinion that the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1919, provide adequate powers to enable the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to constitute small holdings suitable for meeting the requirements of agricultural labourers as well as other applicants.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that nine hours a day is quite enough for any man?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises here.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the paragraph to which I refer in
the Government's White Paper referred, not to the constitution of small holdings, but to the additional lands which could be used as a supplement to the earnings of the agricultural labourers, and could not some similar advantage be given to actual working farm servants and not smallholders?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am looking into the whole question.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 34.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what number of houses, under Government housing schemes, have been built for and occupied by agricultural labourers, and how many of such houses are intended to be built; and what amount of financial assistance has been and will be given by the Government for houses for agricultural labourers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I have no information showing the occupations of persons residing in houses erected under the various State-assisted schemes. As regards the last part of the question, the Government hope shortly to introduce legislation dealing with rural housing.

TRADE UNIONS (ACCOUNTS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether members of the public can obtain copies of the accounts of each of the trade unions; and where and at what price they can be obtained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Members of the public can inspect and obtain copies of the annual return of any registered trade union at the Registry of Friendly Societies (Central Office), 17, North Audley Street, W.1, on payment of the statutory fees, namely, 2s. 6d. for inspection and 1s. 6d. for a copy or extract not exceeding 216 words, and 6d. per folio of 72 words above that number.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether every member of a trade union is entitled to a free copy of the balance-sheet each year?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. If my hon. and gallant Friend were a member of a trade union, he would be entitled to that.

Mr. POTTS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether employers' trade union accounts can be examined in the same way?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

TABLE showing the INCREASE in the NUMBER and PERCENTAGE Of INSURED PERSONS, in the principal METAL and TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, recorded as UNEMPLOYED, APRIL, 1926 to JUNE, 1926—GREAT BRITAIN.


Industry.
Estimated number Insured at July, 1925.
Insured Persons Recorded as Unemployed.


26th April, 1926.
21st June, 1926.
Increases.


Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.


Metal Manufacture (All Classes).
348,460
59,847
17.2
171,898
49.4
112,051
32.2


Engineering (All Classes).
778,470
88,780
11.4
141,396
18.2
52,616
6.8


Metal Trades (All Classes).
502,570
43,329
8.6
76,819
15.3
33,490
6.7


Construction and Repair of. Vehicles (All Classes).
293,500
16,950
5.8
35,077
12.0
18,127
6.9


Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing.
223,110
77,705
34.8
88,152
39.5
10,447
4.7


Cotton
576,540
56,640
9.8
143,991
25.0
87,351
15.2


Woollen and Worsted
256,470
24,826
9.7
63,933
24.9
39,107
15.2


Total of above industries.
2,979,120
368,077
12.3
721,266
24.2
353,189
11.9

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HAMPSHIRE" (NARRATIVE OF EVENTS).

Commander FANSHAWE: 40.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the frequent misconceptions of the circumstances connected with the loss of His Majesty's Ship "Hampshire," he can publish a collective narrative of the information which has been issued from time to time since that event, together with any facts which have subsequently come to the knowledge of the Admiralty, either confirming or modifying what has been published?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): As this matter has

UNEMPLOYMENT (METAL AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in each of the principal metal and textile industries at the end of April and of June, 1926, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

been raised by questions in this House throughout the last few months, I have, for my own guidance, had a collection made of the information which is available at the Admiralty relating to the loss of the "Hampshire."

For reasons of principle which have been explained to the House on various occasions, I am not prepared to publish the actual Report of the Court of Enquiry. But if there be a desire on the part of hon. Members that I should do so, I propose to publish a narrative of events connected with the loss of the ship, which will embody the knowledge derived from the evidence given at the Court of Enquiry as well as from contemporary official reports, signal logs and
other reliable sources of information, and will show that the conclusions which the Admiralty have publicly stated at various times are based on very full and coherent information on all the material facts.

ROSYTH AND PEMBROKE DOCKYARDS (TRANSFEREES, FRANCHISE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the position of married men, their wives over 30 years of age, single men over 21, who, as a result of their being transferred from Rosyth and Pembroke to Devonport, under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, will be disfranchised until the autumn register of 1927 at Rosyth and Pembroke as well as at Devonport and Plymouth because they will not have the six months' residence qualification in any of these places to include them in the autumn register of 1926; and whether, in these circumstances it is proposed to take any steps to remove this disability, which affects a number of people through no fault of their own?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not had my attention drawn to these cases, but the persons in question have lost their qualification for this year's autumn register as a result of the Representation of the People Act, not of the Economy Act, and the only effect of the latter Act in their case is that they will have to wait till the autumn of next year, instead of the spring, before getting on the register again. That, however, is not a very serious matter, as there is no likelihood of a general election next year, and all ordinary local elections are held on the autumn register.

GERMAN DISARMAMENT.

Mr. THURTLE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government regards the condition of disarmament in Germany as satisfactory or unsatisfactory and, in the latter case, in what respect?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): It was the hope of His Majesty's Government last November that the exchange of Notes which took
place between the Ambassadors' Conference and the German Government at that time (and which were published in Command Paper No. 2527) would lead to the rapid conclusion of all the disarmament questions that were still outstanding. It is consequently a matter of disappointment that there are still a certain number of points—mostly, I am happy to say, of a minor nature—which are not yet settled. While for this reason my right hon. Friend expressed the view in reply to the hon. Member for Penistone on the 21st July that the position was not entirely satisfactory, he does not desire it to be concluded that His Majesty's Government regard the situation with any disquiet.

ABYSSINIA.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantages, if any, have been secured by His Majesty's Government for this country, other than the right to construct the Tsana barrage, in return for the concessions made to the Italian Government in Southern and Western Abyssinia?

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government were not seeking advantages for this country but the development of the water supply of the Sudan and Egypt, on which the future prosperity of those countries depends. The Tsana barrage is an essential element in this development, and the only object of the recently concluded Agreement with Italy was to secure Italian support in subsequent negotiations with the Abyssinian Government who alone can authorise the construction of the Tsana barrage. We shall, I hope, be able to show the Abyssinian Government that this work will serve the interests of Abyssinia as well as of the Sudan and Egypt.

Colonel DAY: May I ask whether any subsequent agreement has been come to with the Italian Government and our representative in Rome?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The only agreement has already been made public.

Captain BENN: Does the agreement with Italy in reference to this matter go beyond the terms of the 1906 Treaty?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. Certainly not.

Mr. BUXTON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Abyssinian Government has made any application to the League of Nations for the use of the latter's good offices or influence in connection with the recent negotiations between the British Government and Italy?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government received on the 24th July a letter from the Acting Secretary-General to the League of Nations transmitting to them a copy of a communication in which the Abyssinian Government invited the observations of the League in regard to the Anglo-Italian exchange of notes.

Mr. BUXTON: May I ask whether it will come before the Council or the Assembly in September?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I imagine it will come before the Council.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (INDIA).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of desertions from the Air Force in India since January, 1926; how many such deserters have since been arresetd; if L. A. C. Taylor, who was granted 28 days' leave in February last, has been arrested; if the Air Force is satisfied that this man, whose previous character is very good, did in fact desert, and that there can be no question of death or of murder; and, seeing that Taylor is a white man of over six feet in height and proportionately built, and that such a man could not hide himself in a country like India without attracting attention wherever he may go, will he have inquiry made into this case?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first three parts of the question, with the exception of the airman referred to, whose case may or may not be one of desertion and who has not yet been found, there has been no desertions from the Air Force in India since the 1st January, 1926. As regards the remaining parts, inquiries are being made of India, and I will communicate the results to my hon. Friend.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this man ever reached the city to which he was given leave, and whether a period of six months is a proper time to wait before taking care of a British soldier in a country like India?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot answer the first point without notice. This is the first time my personal attention has been called to the case, and I will at once make inquiry, in response to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. DIXEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Cabinet Committee with regard to the safeguarding of the iron and steel trades is final so far as the lifetime of this Parliament is concerned; and, if so, having regard to the importance and present condition of this industry, what steps does he propose to take to preserve this trade for the nation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no intention of altering their decision regarding the application of the iron and steel industry for the appointment of a Committee under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my previous answers on this subject.

Captain BENN: Why does the Prime Minister disclose the fact that this industry has applied for safeguarding, in view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade says the applications must be secret?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is so much simpler to take a question as it is asked.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL.

Sir EVELYN CECIL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are now prepared to adopt the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Bill as a Government Measure, seeing that it passed its Second Reading and a Select Committee of this House in 1923, again its Second Reading in 1924, all
its stages in another place in 1925, and has this year, after passing its Second Reading in this House by 222 to three, reached the Report stage; and, if so, when it is likely to be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say yet what the Autumn Session may bring forth, but I will favourably consider the possibility of giving time for this Bill.

LEASEHOLD TENURE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public interest in the matter, he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into questions relating to leasehold tenure?

The PRIME MINISTER: Two select Committees have already reported upon this subject, and the facts are well known to the Government. In these circumstances I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Royal Commission. The whole question is at present under consideration.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

Mr. DIXEY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now satisfied that no money for Communistic propaganda is coming into this country from Russia direct or through any other country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My natural caution restrains me from giving a categorical reply, but I have certain special powers in this matter under the Emergency Regulations, and will not hesitate to use them if the occasion should arise.

MR. MELLON (VISIT TO EUROPE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is to have the opportunity of meeting the United States Secretary to the Treasury during the visit of the latter to Europe; and, if so, whether any date has been fixed for the meeting?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the course of his visit to Europe, Mr.
Mellon has expressed his intention to visit London for any official purposes, before returning to America?

Mr. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend has no information beyond what has appeared in the public Press as to Mr. Mellon's movements, and he has no reason to believe that Mr. Mellon's visit to Europe has any official significance.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask whether in view of the reiteration by the United States Treasury of inaccurate statements concerning the Debt settlement it would not be conducive to a better understanding if Mr. Mellon was invited by the British Treasury to make himself acquainted with the facts?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question into which obviously I cannot go.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

STATIONERY OFFICE (ABINGDON STREET).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the annual amount of wages, and also rent and other expenses, incurred in connection with the Stationery Office in Abingdon Street; and what was the total return of sales for the last three years?

Mr. McNEILL: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the particulars he desires in the trading accounts for the Abingdon Street Sales Office. The accounts for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24 are published on pages 170 to 174 of House of Commons Paper No. 75 of 1925, and those for the year 1924–25 on page 154 of House of Commons Paper No. 50 of 1926. Accounts for the year 1925–26 are not yet issued.

Colonel DAY: Do they show a profit or a loss?

Mr. McNEILL: I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the accounts which I have mentioned.

INLAND REVENUE (TEMPORARY STAFF, DISCHARGES).

Mr. THURTLE: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary civil servants are now under notice of dismissal from the Inland Revenue; and how many of these are ex-service men?

Mr. McNEILL: 324 members of the temporary staff of the Inland Revenue are at present under notice of discharge by reason of the necessity to provide places for qualified ex-service entrants from the recent examination. Wherever circumstances allow, and the men themselves desire it, arrangements are being made to extend the period within which the notices become operative. The men concerned are practically all ex-service men who did not sit or who failed to qualify at the examination.

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the figures for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, showing the total receipts, working expenses, officers' salaries, allowances, and expenses, and benefits paid to members, other than dispute pay, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The annual return for the year ended 31st December, 1925, of the union to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers shows total receipts £524,732 1s. 9d.; working expenses, £284,010 4s. 7d. (including £189,419 6s. 8½d. as salaries and allowances of officers, etc., and branch secretaries) and benefits paid to members other than dispute pay, £80,202 2s. 11d.

Mr. HAYES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport and General Workers of the Everton Division of Liverpool are well aware of all these things, which is their business, and that they will be quite prepared to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he wants to know it.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How can the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) tell the House, seeing that he has no connection with Everton or its trade union men, and knows nothing about it.

Mr. HAYES: Inquire in Liverpool and see!

EXCHEQUER GRANTS (MESTON COMMITTEE).

Mr. SCURR: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether the
Meston Committee on the question of Grants-in-Aid has yet held a meeting to consider the draft Report; and, if not, whether the Government proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware that any meeting has been held. As I stated on the 24th June, the Government are engaged on independent inquiries into the subject.

MOTOR VEHICLES (COMPULSORY INSURANCE).

Mr. MORRIS: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, before introducing a Bill providing for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the present system of penalties imposed by insurance companies upon those policy-holders who have been unfortunate in meeting with accidents in any year?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I can assure the hon. Member that regard will be had to all relevant considerations, before the introduction of any system for the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS (ROUND-ABOUT TRAFFIC SYSTEM).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the reason for the delay in the inauguration of the roundabout-traffic system in Piccadilly Circus, and on what conditions the objections of the local authority were overcome?

Colonel ASHLEY: The "roundabout" system of traffic devised for Piccadilly Circus started operation this morning. Personal discussions between the officials of my Department and those of the local authority have, I hope, satisfied the latter that the advantages of the scheme for this district will outweigh any possible disadvantages.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will it be possible to say whether the system has worked successfully this morning?

Colonel ASHLEY: The system is working quite satisfactorily, and the police are handling the situation with great skill.

WEST HAM GUARDIANS

Mr. W. THORNE: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the salary paid to Mr. Alan Beal and Mr. John James Scott, and the amount of superannuation Sir Alfred Woodgate is receiving, the three special commissioners who have been appointed to take charge of the West Ham Poor Law Union; and what expenses are being allowed to each of the three commissioners?

Sir K. WOOD: The salaries, including the cost of living bonus, of Mr. Beal and Mr. Scott are £764 and £864 a year, respectively. Sir Alfred Woodgate is in receipt of a superannuation allowance of £843 a year; the question of the remuneration which may be approved to be paid to them as appointed guardians under the Board of Guardians (Default) Act is under consideration.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister tell us the figures that are to be paid before the House rises for the Adjournment, or are we simply to go on as at present?

Mr. W. THORNE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the scale of relief paid out for the week ending Saturday, 24th July, in the West Ham Poor Law Union to single persons who are not living with their parents; single persons who are living away from home; for man and wife; man and wife with one child; man and wife with two children; man and wife with three children: man and wife with four children; man and wife with five children; man and wife with six children; the value of relief in kind and the value of relief in money; and if he can now state what is the maximum scale to be paid out where there is no family income?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that the scale on which relief has been paid during the week in question is the scale followed by the late guardians during the last fortnight of their administration.

The scale was as follows:

s.
d.


Single persons living with their parents
7
0


Single persons living away from home
11
0


Man and wife residing together
14
6


Man and wife, with one child
18
0


Man and wife, with two children
22
0

s.
d.


Man and wife, with three children
25
6


Man and wife, with four children
29
6


Man and wife, with five children
33
0


Man and wife with six children
37
0

In addition, an allowance for rent was made except to single persons. It will not be possible to state the value of relief in (a) kind; and (b) money granted during the week ended the 24th July, 1926, until Tuesday next, the 27th instant. The maximum of the scale of relief granted in any one case in which there was no family income was 41s. 6d.

Colonel DAY: Is it contemplated to make any reductions in these scales?

Mr. STEPHEN: Cannot we have an answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put the question on the Paper.

Mr. W. THORNE: 27.
asked the Minister of Health the percentage of interest that will be charged for the last loan of £300,000 to the West Ham Poor Law Union; the amount of interest and principal that is to be repaid each year; the total amount now owing to the Government; what amount of interest and principal has been repaid since the first loan was granted in 1921; and what amount of principal and interest has to be repaid each year until the outstanding loans have been repaid?

Sir K. WOOD: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following the reply:

The rate of interest to be charged on the last loan of £300,000 issued to the West Ham Guardians is 5 per cent.; the amount of principal to be repaid and interest payable each year in respect of the above loan is as follows:

Financial Year
Principal.
Interest.
Total.




£
£
£


1926
…
—
10,397
10,397


1927
…
—
15,000
15,000


1928
…
30,000
15,000
45,000


1929
…
60,000
12,750
72,750


1930
…
60,000
9,750
69,750


1931
…
60,000
6,750
66,750


1932
…
60,000
3,750
63,750


1933
…
30,000
750
30,750

The total amount now owing to the Ministry in respect of all loans outstanding is £2,275,000; the amount of principal repaid since first loan was granted is £425,000, and the interest paid £195,482.

The amount of principal and interest to be paid each year until the outstanding loans have been repaid is as follows:

Financial Year.
Amount.






£


1926
…
…
…
370,736


1927
…
…
…
428,506


1928
…
…
…
466,513


1929
…
…
…
457,488


1930
…
…
…
438,188


1931
…
…
…
319,600


1932
…
…
…
161,831


1933
…
…
…
30,750

ESPERANTO.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the publication by the International Labour Office of a bulletin in Esperanto, and to the resolution of the Workers' Group at the Eighth Session of the International Labour Conference welcoming this publication, and urging the desirability of adopting Esperanto as an auxiliary language at international conferences and whether he will take steps to indicate His Majesty's Government's attitude on this question?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. Under the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference the official languages are French and English. If and when proposals are made to adopt other languages at International Labour Conferences, His Majesty's Government will consider their attitude on the question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who learn this language find it extremely difficult to discover anyone to whom to talk?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

MARGARET GRACE BONDFIELD, for the Borough of Wallsend.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major CRAWFURD:
55. "To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the cases dealt with at the Old Bailey on 19th July of R. V. Robinson and R. V. Benny, special constables enlisted during the strike; whether he is aware that these men, with another still at large, were billeted on Sir W. Bass, at 78, South Audley Street, in accordance with a Home Office scheme of hospitality, contrary to the authority of Sir W. Bass, who had confined his invitation to Government clerks or typists; whether any of the three men had been previously convicted; what guarantees or credentials are required of men offering themselves as special constables; what amends, if any, have been made to Sir W. Bass for the theft of his property by these men; whether he is aware that Sir W. Bass has been compelled to issue process against the Commissioner of Police to regain possession of the articles stolen by members of his own force; and whether any reply, other than a bare acknowledgment, has been sent to Sir W. Bass's repeated written requests for an explanation?

Major CRAWFURD: On a point of Order. May I ask if Question 55 was put? I regret that I was not in my place when it was first called.

Mr. SPEAKER: I called the hon. and gallant Member, but received no response.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury or the Prime Minister inform the House what are the New Services referred to in this Motion.

The PRIME MINISTER: This is the ordinary form for taking New Services, provided the Regulations have been carried out which entitle us to put down this Motion. The New Services which have appeared during this Session have been four in number. One is the Board of Control in connection with the Harnett v. Bond case; another is the guarantee for the British Empire Exhi-
bition and the remaining two are Emergency Services, both of which have been passed through Committee.

Captain BENN: Is it necessary to move this Motion if the New Services have been laid more than two days before the closing of the Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; it has to be done in any case. They have been laid and a full opportunity has been given to the House.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 105.

Division No. 390.]
AYES.
[3.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mac Intyre, Ian


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
McLean, Major A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Apsley, Lord
Frece, Sir Walter de
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Butler, Sir Mervyn


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Berry, Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Murchison, C. K.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pielou, D. P.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Remnant, Sir James


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major J, R. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, s.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (sury, Ch'ts'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Skelton, A. N.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Couper, J. B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F (Will'sden, E.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Starry-Deans, R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley. Major G. M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dixey, A. C.
Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Drew, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Templeton, W. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Elveden, Viscount
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgn, Major Robert D. I.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmer, Viscount



White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Barnston.


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Waiter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
M r. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on Air Expenditure, 1924–25, and of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at

this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prince Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 107.

Division No. 391.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Albery, Irving James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brooks, Brigadler-General C. R. I.
Cope. Major William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Apsley, Lord
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Burman, J. B.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Campbell, E. T.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Berry, Sir George
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dixey, A. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Drewe, C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eden, Captain Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elveden, Viscount


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major sir A. B.
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Brass, Captain W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rye, F. G.


Forrest, W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandon, Lord


Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Savory, S. S.


Gates, Percy
Locker Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Shaw, Capt. Waiter (Wilts, Westh'y)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loder, J. de V.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Goff, Sir Park
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grace, John
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Grant, Sir J. A.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gretton-Doyle, Sir N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macintyre, Ian
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w,E)
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hammersley, S. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore-Brabazen, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Titchfeld, Major the Marquess of


Henderson. Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Murchison, C. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wanner, Captain D. E.


Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar- & Wh'by)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hilton, Cecil
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pielou, D. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pilcher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hurd, Percy A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jacob, A. E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Barnston.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kennedy, T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, J. P.
Lee, F.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Livingstone, A. M.


Barnes, A.
Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.


Barr, J.
Gosling, Harry
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mackinder, W.


Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bondfleid, Margaret
Groves, T.
March, S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morris, R. H.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Harney, E. A.
Paling, W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, RI. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben


Day, Colonel Harry
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dennison, R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Scurr John
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Smllile, Robert
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Windsor, Waiter


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snell, Harry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
M r. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Stamford, T. W.
Welsh, J. C.
Hayes.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Cape; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Buchanan.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

CLASS II.

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £102,609, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927. for the Salaries and Expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices' Expenses under the Inebriates Act, 1879 to 1900, expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1870 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland', Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Steamer Services to the Hebrides, and Grants in respect of Unemployment Schemes."—[NOTE: £60,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS VII.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Resolved.
That a sum, not exceeding £1,858,345, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Ant, 1925, and certain Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £870,000 has been voted on account.]

CLASS IV.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,680,342, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £2,750,000 has been voted on account.]

COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

CLASS

MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,130, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."—[NOTE: £73,500 has been voted on account.]

The CHAIRMAN: I think I should say, before this Debate begins, that on previous occasions on this Vote the Committee has been willing to allow me, for the sake of greater freedom of Debate, to permit reference to possible legislation in connection with the coal industry. If no objection be taken, I propose to do that on this occasion also.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I move a reduction of the Vote in order to call attention to the present position of the disastrous struggle in the coalfield. This is the beginning of the lath week of this struggle. Even if negotiations were to begin to-morrow, the length of the struggle would be a record one, because my recollection of the 1921 struggle is that, even after we had agreed substantially to the terms of the settlement, there was still an interval of about a fortnight for ballots and for meetings of the executive. So that I think it may be assumed that, even if there be an arrangement in the course of this week, this is the record struggle in the coalfield. It is a very disastrous one. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) last week estimated that the cost up to the 16th July would reach £160,000,000. It is generally assumed from the Government Bench that that was an under-estimate, and I see that Sir Hugh Bell, writing last week, estimates that the cost is something like £250,000,000, which means over £20,000,000 a week, and the loss is a progressive one, as has been pointed out by an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. I see that the Board of Trade returns, which were issued the other day, show that, whereas at the beginning of this year our export
trade was only 80 per cent. of pre-War, the last three months it is down to 62 per cent. So that, from every point of view, it is a. very disastrous struggle. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in very striking words, which are quoted to-day in the "Times," and which are worth reading, made this estimate:
The loss of two or three weeks' stoppage would he recoverable; that of eight or nine weeks would make a deep mark on the livelihood of the whole people. A stoppage of twelve or fourteen weeks would probably mean that it will be two or three years before the country can recover.'
Those are the facts which we must face, and it is rather significant that, when he used those words, he regarded 14 weeks as being the maximum. I wish he were quite sure he was right. I propose to call attention to this struggle at this stage for two reasons. The first is, that we shall be separating in a few days. The next is, that there is an opportunity which has come again, I think, for a peaceable and an honourable settlement. I can assure my hon. Friends who represent mining constituencies that there was no desire to take the handling of the question out of their hands, but we thought it was desirable that somebody not intimately associated with the matter should raise it on this occasion. There is another opportunity which, I think, has come providentially in the course of the last few days, and it has come through the intervention of the representatives of the churches in this country. The "Times" to-day, in a very remarkable article, which, I hope, hon. Members have had an opportunity of discussing, makes these observations. Having first of all referred to several proposals which have been put forward, or might be suggested for the settlement of this dispute, it goes on:
No other proposals have a comparable basis of knowledge and authority (to the Report of the Commission), and none contain the promise of that permanence which is essential for the well-being, not only of the mining industry itself, but of every other industry which, directly or indirectly, depends upon coal. Parliament to-day will undoubtedly express the opinion of the nation if it affirms that an agreement is to be sought and found on the lines prepared by the Commission.
That is a very remarkable statement, coming from the leading supporter of the Government in the Press. I think there is an opportunity which has come within the last few days of carrying out that
suggestion, of making that agreement effective.
4.0 P.M.
That has arisen out of the intervention of certain Bishops and clergy and ministers of religion. There may be two views with regard to interference by the Churches in matters of this kind. I observe that some of the papers charge them with butting in, and let me say at once that the clergy are not equipped by training, or by study, or by temperament to express opinions upon questions of wages and with regard to business arrangements. They generally, very wisely, leave those matters to the laity. They provide the stimulus and the appeal, and the more worldly-minded laity do the rest, and the combination is a very effective one. What wages should be and what business arrangements ought to be—I agree that is not a sphere in which the clergy can be helpful, but surely, when there is strife in the nation and strife which divides their own Churches, they are entitled to intervene, to put in a plea for conciliation and agreement, and they have not gone beyond that on this occasion, not in the least. The actual proposals which they have put forward are proposals which have either been accepted by the Prime Minister at different stages in the controversy or to which he has raised no objection, with one exception, and that is an exception where they have the memorandum of the Chairman of the Commission in their favour. All that they have done is to put forward proposals which others have formulated and to which the Prime Minister from time to time has given sanction. But the question is not whether it is right or wrong for the clergy to intervene; the thing that matters is the reply of the Miners' Federation, and it is to that I propose to draw attention. The Miners' Federation in their reply to the Churches say:
The suggested terms of settlement have been submitted to the full executive, and we are instructed to inform you that if a settlement can he arrived at upon the terms set nut in the enclosed document, the committee are prepared to recommend their acceptance by the miners.
They go on to use words which I think are full of significance and full of promise:
Further, they indicate their readiness to make every endeavour to assist in the
reorganisation of the mining industry to ensure its success.
What are the proposals which are referred to there? They are very important, because the Prime Minister has promised, in a letter which he wrote to Wallsend, that the Government will do all that they can to obtain a full discussion of any reasonable proposals. Let us see what they are. The first one is that the Commissioners are to be called back to work out in greater detail the proposals of their Report. No one will claim that the Report has been carried out by the Government at present. Several vital recommendations made by the Commissioners have been left out altogether, or have been deferred, or postponed, or put off by the appointment of other committees; some have been dropped altogether. The very first recommendation dealing with royalties has been abandoned; that with regard to reconstruction has been very inadequately carried out; that with regard to selling has simply been referred to another committee; research, and may other points which I could mention are left out altogether. What is it that this document proposes? It is that you should re-appoint your Commission, and that they should work out in detail their recommendations with regard to reconstruction and to wages. Surely that is a reasonable thing in itself, and I am sure the Prime Minister must see that. In fact, he used words about a fortnight or three weeks ago which indicated that he was in favour of carrying out the Report of the Commission provided he got an acceptance of it. If words mean anything this letter of the Miners' Federation constitutes an acceptance.
The Report is not clear in many respects. There have been disputes among people who start endeavouring to interpret it as to the meaning of the Clause with regard to reconstruction and with regard to wages. Therefore, it is very desirable that the Commission should be called back in order to give an interpretation of their own proposals. The right hon. Gentleman himself said some time ago that the owners and miners were unlikely to agree. That has been obvious to everybody for over a year. It is getting less likely except on the basis of complete defeat and surrender on one side, and that
is a very cruel and crude process of arriving at an agreement. An agreement is a misnomer when it is reached under these circumstances. Therefore, an impartial authority must intervene. This leads to the next proposal, and the most remarkable Proposal, which is contained in this document which is accepted by Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook on behalf of the Miners' Federation. It is that if anything is left at the end of the three or four months which it will take to work out the details upon which agreement has not been obtained, you should then have a joint committee with an impartial chairman, and that his award should be accepted. This is the first time that we have had that declaration, and I urge the Government not to throw away the opportunity which this involves. These words are so important that I think I will read the actual Clause:
At the end of the defined period, if disagreements should still exist, a joint board, consisting of representatives of both parties, shall appoint an independent chairman, whose award in settlement of these disagreements shall be accepted by both parties.
That is a very startling concession, and it would be a grave disaster if the opportunity were thrown away. It is the first time that anything of the kind has ever been suggested in the coal field. It is a tremendous step for them to have taken. There have been protests, I believe, from parts of the coal field with regard to it, but the executive have accepted it, and it is certainly not for the Government not to accept it. Let me point out here what the right hon. Gentleman himself said in a speech which he delivered at Norwich a few days ago, because it bears upon this vital issue:
Here is the coal industry "—
said the Prime Minister—
where owners and miners appoint chartered accountants to investigate and report, each on their behalf, where all the facts are available on which judgment could be given by a competent arbitrator. There is no industry where so much data is available, where negotiations would be more easily possible, where the position is less necessary, but it goes on week after week, because .facts are unpalatable and neither side is willing to accept the arbitration and verdict of an outsider. There is presumably in their opinion no one in the whole world sufficiently able or impartial to sit in judgment on the coal industry. I repeat that that is an unreasonable position to take up.
At that very moment, the Prime Minister had, I think, in his pocket a proposal accepted by Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook to take the judgment of an impartial arbitrator upon the very facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four months!"] If they can get through the difficulties in less time nobody wants to put it off. I will come to the question of the four months in a minute. Let us confine ourselves to that point to begin with. This is not something which the Prime Minister said three months ago—it is too much to ask him to stand by that—this is something which he has said within the last fortnight, and I ask him to point out what is the difference between the proposal which is contained in the letter of Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith to the representatives of the churches and the very proposal which he puts in here. It is the very first time that we have had this. I think, as a matter of fact, injustice has been done to some of the speeches made by Mr. Herbert Smith from time to time, and the concessions which he has indicated as clearly as any man could, having regard to the difficulties which he had, and the fact that he had to enter into negotiations on the subject. I will just give one or two of them in order to show. He has never, so far as I can recollect, uttered the slogan, "Not a penny off the wage and not a minute on the hours." He is opposed to the extension of hours, and he has said quite distinctly that if he had to choose between reductions of wages and an extension of hours, he would have no hesitation in recommending reductions. But he has made one or two very remarkable speeches. I called attention to them at the time, but no importance was attached to them by the Government. For instance, there was the occasion when he said:
What I did say was that I was prepared to start at page 1 and go to the end of the book"—
Which means the Report—
which would have meant examining a reduction of wages.
He was prepared to examine that proposition. What more can you expect. When starting negotiations, somebody says, "Well, you must accept either an increase of hours or a reduction of wages." He says, in so many words, "I will not assent to an extension of hours,
but I am prepared to examine the question of a reduction of wages." Is not that a perfectly fair position? I agree with the comment of the Trade Union Council on the declarations which he made:—
It will be plainly seen by anyone that these two statements"—
and there have been many others—
were exactly the same, and could only imply an acceptance of all the implications in the Report of the Royal Commission. including the possible readjustment of wages, if the rest of the recommendations of the Report were also to apply.
I agree, but what matters now is this: You have got away from the slogan, and you have got now to a definite position, above the signatures of the two officials of the Miners' Executive, that they are prepared to assent to a reference back to the Commission with a view to working out the details of the Report on reconstruction and wages; and, if there is anything left upon which there is disagreement, they are prepared to refer the matter to an impartial chairman and to stand by his decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "And a susbsidy!"] I cannot deal with that question at the same time. The very next point I was coming to was financial assistance, which is also in these recommendations:
That financial assistance be granted by the Government during the defined period"—
which is four months—
under a scheme to be drawn up by the Commissioners.
There are objections to a subsidy. I have stated them here. There were only 12 who voted against it. Objections on principle to a subsidy cannot be taken by hon. Members opposite or by the Government, unless they are prepared to say they were absolutely wrong in assisting to give a subsidy previously. What I want to point out is that the Prime Minister has accepted the principle of a subsidy quite recently. Only the question of amount remains. On 1st June the Prime Minister made the following statement—I can read the whole passage if anybody says I am unfairly quoting it, but I will read only the few lines that matter:
a temporary subsidy in sonic form or another, whether it be to aid time period while negotiations are proceeding"—
which is exactly the proposal here—
or whether it be to aid certain districts, after the negotiations have succeeded, I cannot say—but for one of these two purposes, it may be for both, I believe some assistance will be necessary.
Therefore, the principle which is embodied in the proposals of the Churches, which have been accepted by the Miners' Federation, is also accepted by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] No Commission can work out the details of a matter of that kind except, of course, subject to the supreme control of the Treasury. The proposal in the Churches' document is that the subsidy should extend to four months. The Prime Minister himself proposed three months. I quote from the "Times" of 25th March, when he first made his proposal to the Miners' Federation and the mineowners. It ends:
After pointing out that he was prepared to give financial assistance, the Prime Minister himself suggested three months.
That is the difference, that the Churches suggest four months and that on 25th March the Prime Minister suggested three months.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: £3,000,000.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The £3,000,000 came later. That was one of the afterthoughts which were, I am afraid, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that was the Prime Minister's idea at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hidden hand!"] Not so very hidden! Let me point this out to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Less will be required now. Money will go further now in the way of a subsidy than it would go at the beginning of the struggle. Why? Because prices have soared very considerably. Export prices are up 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. Of course, they will drop, but they will not drop immediately, and it is quite an open question whether, with wisdom, the export prices would return to the figure they were at when the stoppage took place. At the time of the stoppage the export prices were artificial prices, they were fictitious prices, they were prices caused very largely by the working of the subsidy; and even before that there was competition, which was a pretty wild one,
between one firm and another inside our country, which did not put us in the position which we ought to have been in with regard to the prices which we could have exacted from the foreigner. At the present moment a subsidy would go very much further than it would have gone three or four months ago.
The amount of the subsidy was very largely due to the way in which it was paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was like Providence, he rained on the just and the unjust alike. He gave his subsidies to prosperous concerns that did not need it—just the same amount of subsidy as he did to concerns that could only just keep going by means of it. If there were a little wisdom in the way the subsidy were worked out there is no reason why it should be a very high one. I have even heard people say that possibly £3,000,000 might be sufficient. PersoNaily I should not have thought so. I want to be quite frank about that; I do not think it would, and I think it would be a mistake to arrive at an agreement on the assumption that £3,000,000 would be quite adequate. According to a right hon. Friend of mine, we are losing per week about £15,000,000, and it is a progressive loss. According to Sir Hugh Bell we are losing over £20,000,000 a week. At worst the subsidy would not be one-half of one week's loss; and if the Government agree upon the other principles of that document, that is, a reference back to the Commission to work out the details of reconstruction, and an independent chairman to decide fiNaily what the figures should be, I cannot believe they would stand in the way of a settlement of a dispute that is so disastrous to the industry of the country because they are afraid of increasing by just a few millions the subsidy which they have offered.
What are the alternatives? There is only one alternative and the Government know it. The alternative is the extension of hours. The real struggle is between the recommendations of the Commission and something which the Commission turned down—the extension of hours. The leading Government organ says to-day:
Parliament to-day will undoubtedly express the opinion of the nation if it affirms that an agreement is to be sought
and found on the lines prepared by the Commission.
The lines prepared by the Commission are the lines which are laid down in this document, which has now been accepted by the chiefs of the Miners' Federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No subsidy!"] The Prime Minister has accepted the principle of a subsidy, as I have pointed out, and so has the Chairman of the Commission—"financial assistance in order to carry the transaction through." If a subsidy is the only thing in the way—well, I shall be surprised if the Prime Minister says no. Do not let us use the subsidy in order to masquerade the demand for an extension of hours. I know that I cannot discuss the merits of a Bill already passed, although you have been good enough, Mr. Hope, to suggest that we have latitude with regard to future legislation, and I do not propose to transgress. But the Eight Hours Act is a voluntary one, and although I cannot discuss the wisdom or otherwise of having carried it, I can discuss the probability and the desirability of its being brought into operation, and I can discuss the question of how long it is likely to take to force its acceptance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"]—and whether it is worth the nation's while to prolong the struggle in order to let the owners have their way in that respect. So far the attempt has been a failure. The fact that a few thousands have gone back only emphasises the unanimity with which the miners have rejected this alternative.
The Government promised not to legislate in the absence of an agreement. On the 15th of May the Prime Minister said:
If the parties agree that it is advisable that some temporary modification should be made in the statutory hours of work, the Government will propose the necessary legislation forthwith, and give facilities for its immediate passage.
An agreement between the miners and the mineowners was a preliminary condition to any legislation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer denies it, I will read it again?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): indicated assent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad that my right hon. Friend voted for that Act under a false appreciation of the promise
given by his chief. These are the Prime Minister's words:
If the parties agree that it is advisable that some temporary modification should be made in the statutory hours of work, the Government will propose the necessary legislation forthwith and give facilities for its immediate passage.
That is, if there is agreement between the parties with regard to the extension of hours, then the Government would bring in legislation; but there was no agreement between the parties. There is no doubt at all about this, that if we are to wait until the miners surrender on the question of hours it will prolong the straggle for some time.

Mr. BATEY: Another 12 months.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will prolong it for some time. There is no doubt about that. It must be obvious to anyone who is watching what is going on. Mr. Herbert Smith has made quite clear what his view his. I hear men say, "Is it not very much better that the miners should have exactly the same wage, even if they put in an extra half-hour or three-quarters of an hour or hour?" I do not think those who argue like that can have given real thought to the problem. What does it mean? If there is prosperity the reduction of wages disappears, they automatically get back their wages—automatically, more or less; but prosperity will stand in the way of a reduction of the hours of labour once the increase has been accepted. Let us look at the figures given by the Report. The Commissioners point out that if you extend the hours of labour by one hour you increase the output by 30,000,000 tons.
In the alternative, you reduce the number of workers by 130,000. What does that mean? It means that, when the demand is least, the work is longest and you are to produce the most. You produce the most when the demand is least, and the suggestion is that you should gradually diminish the hours of labour, as the mines become more prosperous. This means that, when the demand is most, you must reduce the hours. The miners realise perfectly well that, once you give a concession upon that point, if you make it a reduction of wages that is something you can get back, but if you make it on hours it is a very difficult thing to get back at all. They had to get legislation in order to make it im-
possible for the minority to stand in the way of a general reduction of hours in the mines. That is why the proposals of the Government with regard to amalgamation have been brought in. It is in order to prevent a minority of owners making amalgamation impossible. The Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to shops was in order to prevent a minority of shopkeepers making it impossible to close the shops in a given area. It is the same thing here. I was in the House of Commons when the struggle for the eight hours was going on for a great many years, and I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here too. I think he was. The vast majority of the miners were in favour of it. There was a minority against, and it was only by introducing legislation that it was made possible for an eight-hour day to be introduced into the mines. The moment, therefore, you get an Act of Parliament that makes it permissive, if, by exhaustion, you drive the miners back to their old hours, it will be a very slow process before they can get back to their present conditions. What is the result? You will have a permanent lowering of the standard of living in the mines instead of going forward.

Mr. BATEY: That is the intention.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In 1919 what happened? The recommendation in favour of seven hours, my recollection is, was unanimous. It was signed by Mr. Adam Nimmo, and if the owners signed it the Government may depend upon it that it was not too generous a concession under the circumstances. There were very important members of that committee, great industrialists, who were in favour of a gradual reduction to six. Sir Althur Balfour, who was the head of the great inquiry into the industrial conditions; Sir Thomas Roydon, a great shipowner; Sir Richard Duckham, and Mr. Justice Sankey. Three of them were great business men, and they were in favour of a gradual reduction to six. Seven hours does not mean seven hours. Seven hours, according to the Report of the Commission, means sometimes eight, but on an average it means seven hours and 37 minutes, working out of the sunlight, working under conditions of
momentary peril, and I do not think that that is fully realised, and that ought to be taken into account. Take the figures given by the Commission. The average number of deaths from accidents in the mines between 1922 and 1924 was 1,200; seriously injured, 4,900; disabled for more than seven days, 197,000—that is with a million workers. I do not think that seven and a-half hours ought to be converted into eight and a-half unless it is absolutely, demonstrably essential for the very life of industry in this country.
Can the Prime Minister be surprised that the miners and their leaders say, "If we have got to choose between a temporary reduction of wages and an extension of hours, in this dangerous trade, we would rather take a temporary reduction of wages"? I do ask him not to commit the Government, and, by committing the Government, commit the country to a disastrous struggle in order to force an extension of hours upon an unwilling industry, because that is what the struggle is coming to at the present moment. That is really the choice between the Report of this Commission. They, after examining the situation carefully, came definitely to the conclusion that they were against it. They point out that France has the same number of hours. Belgium has the same number of hours. They point out that the output of the French miner per person is only two-thirds of that of the British miner, yet the French miner has his seven-hours day underground, according to this document. They say that it is a definite lowering of the standard, and they point out that one effect of it will be that, if Britain lengthens her hours, the other countries will follow suit. They will be forced to do it, because of the inferiority of their mines, of their difficulty in competing with us at the present moment, and, if we increase the hours of labour, in order merely to exist, they will have to increase their hours, and we shall be in a worse position than ever. I think it is worth while to remember the actual words of the Commission:
If Britain lengthens her hours, these other countries will certainly consider whether they should not follow suit. All that would have been achieved would have been a general lowering of the standard of leisure in all mining countries.
I ask the Prime Minister not to commit us by a refusal of these terms to driving
the miner, by a process of exhaustion, to a permanent lowering of the standard of living, not merely in this country, but throughout the mines of Europe. He has to choose between two alternatives, and this is the time to choose one of them. One is the owners' policy. They have never swerved from it. They have given lip service to reconstruction, but they have never really been in favour of it; they have done their very best to limit it. They have confined it to the initiative of the owners, and they have come to the conclusion that there is no harm in this Bill from their point of view, nor is there. It is the price they paid to the Government for the agreement to increase the hours. Repeated Commissions have sat upon their industry, but they have never yet said a word that gives them credit for efficiency; on the contrary, every Commission that has investigated has come to the conclusion that there is much to be done to reconstruct the industry and make it more efficient. But I must say this for them, that when they have an idea, they stick to it, and their one idea has been to increase the hours of labour. If they get their way, it will prolong this struggle; it has prolonged it already. It has made negotiations impossible while that Bill was going through the House of Commons, and while an opportunity was given to the miners to make up their minds.
What will happen? If, under the cruel lash of necessity, the miners are driven to accept this alternative, there may be a temporary relief, but there will be temporary embarrassment and permanent mischief. You wilt have an immediate increase in unemployment by 130,000, for you are not going to produce an extra 30,000,000 tons of coal which nobody will buy. So, therefore, you put 130,000 more miners out of work. You will have a general lowering in the standard of living in the mines, and distrust between capital and labour. You will have a removal of the pressure for increased efficiency; you will keep unrest alive in the coalfields. You will begin again an agitation, about hours this time, where you want peace. You will have the same haggling about hours and reduction of wages which you have got now, and you will have a perpetuation of strife, ill-will and bitterness. That is what the acceptance of the owners' tactics and strategy means. On
the other hand, if the Churches' policy is adopted, the Report of the Royal Commission plus an independent Chairman, a reference to the Commission of the details of their proposal, a small subsidy which will not amount to half the weekly loss, you can put the coalfields on a sound business footing; you will procure the hearty co-operation of the miners, and you will restore goodwill in the coalfields for the first time.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I wish, indeed, it were as simple a matter to get peace and prosperity and co-operation in the coal industry as one might imagine from the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with a good deal of what he has said, and I disagree with some of it, but I agree most strongly with an observation which he made at the beginning of his speech, when he said that there are two points of view about what took place the other day, and about the intervention of the gentlemen who had intervened. There always must be two views—the view of the man in office and the view of the man in opposition. There is nobody in this House who is so well qualified to give the right answer to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as he himself would be if he stood where I stand to-day.
I wish to avoid to-day as far as I can controversial matter, and I wish to indulge as little as possible in quotations from past speeches. There is only one quotation which I wish to use. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee in making any explanation of apparent discrepancies the right hon. Gentleman found in certain observations of mine which I made in March, except to suggest to the Committee that time has passed since then, and that the situation financially is a very different one from what it was then. There is just one observation I would make. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair in what he said about certain remarks I made at Norwich. It is quite true that a letter was sent to me, but it was not until a few days afterwards that I saw the deputation, and still think that in view of the letter I received, having had no opportunity of discussion, I was justified in the observation that I made. I would remind the Committee—and this is the only quotation I am going to make
from this source, because it shows the difficulty of the whole situation which we are all up against, and it was made before I went to Norwich possibly—that I received a letter from the Bishop of Lich-field with the signature of the Secretary of the Miners' Federation attached to it. It was only in Monday's "Daily Herald" that I read that the same gentleman said, referring to a reduction of wages, that when reorganisation proposals are put into operation, wages reduction will be unnecessary. [Laughter.] That is a very different thing, and it is not a laughing matter at all. It shows the way in which reorganisation has become almost an obcession with some people in their belief that reorganisation in itself may be able to provide so much more than others think it will. The whole point of reorganisation has yet to be proved, and there is no leader, no economist but knows that you have to wait a long time for the fruits of reorganisation, however energetically it may be put into effect. Whatever reorganisation may be done it cannot put the industry on its legs in a short time.
I think I ought to try and put before the Committee the offer—I do not know whether it is exactly an offer—the question that the deputation of the Churches put before me and discussed with me. It has been said that we turned down the proposal, and we turned down arbitration. The proposals, as the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, contained in the fore-front a suggestion that there should be an immediate resumption of work on the conditions obtaining last April, and that for a period not exceeding four months the Government should give financial assistance. Proposals of that nature in one form or another cropped up during the discussion preceding this particular dispute, and the views of the Government regarding a subsidy have been stated many times. It is quite true that in March last, when we had no stoppage of any kind, when our anxiety was to avert a stoppage and when the finances of the country had not been hit by a stoppage, we could have gone almost to any length which could have been agreed to between the parties in order to tide over a period; and in spite of the Commission's Report saying that the subsidy ought to be brought to an end at once and never again introduced, we felt that we should have the
House of Commons with us in asking for almost any subsidy within reason to have got a settlement then.
The fact that the representatives of the Churches were putting forward these suggestions had got into the Press on Saturday morning—I do not know how—and that is why I felt it my duty to reply immediately by letter that a subsidy in such a form could not be considered, because there has always been in many men's minds the impression that a subsidy, and a considerable subsidy, would be paid. This rests partly on the wish being father to the thought, and partly on the fact that subsidies have been paid in the past in other circumstances. I thought it was of particular importance to repudiate the suggestion that whatever desire there might be on either of the two sides to come together, or to discuss matters or to negotiate, that desirable process could only be achieved by an increased subsidy being found from any source whatever.
I did not deal with the question of arbitration in my reply, because that part of the proposal, and the form in which it appeared, was bound up with a suggestion which the Government could not see its way to accept. The House will remember that arbitration was the basis of the proposal which I put forward at the beginning. I thought then, and I believe now that the dispute is one that can properly be dealt with by arbitration, but if it be that even under the conditions which were laid before me by the representatives of the Churches that the one side, so far as arbitration is concerned, is willing to regard it as an open question, that I regard as progress and a step forward in the right direction. But, of course, this is bound up with the question of a subsidy for four months, which is far too long a time to keep the industry, after what it has gone through, in a condition of uncertainty, an uncertainty which must be prolonged in a discussion of that kind. When I said that we could not see our way to give a subsidy, the representatives of the Churches then asked about a loan, but they put no definite suggestions forward with regard to that or with regard to the precise meaning of the loan. I explained that the Government could not undertake a loan, as it would be as bad for credit as a subsidy.
It was difficult to see how a loan could be arranged, because the industry itself it not an entity, but consists of a number of various concerns and different societies, each of them an independent financial unit, and it seems to me impossible to find a body which could borrow or give the security unless the Government were brought directly into it.
Supposing the loan was to be repaid by the coal trade in any form you like divided amongst the owners, the men and the royalty owners, you would in fact be carrying out such a process by mortgaging the future of the industry to that extent, by placing a charge upon it, when it is at present manifestly uneconomic over a large area, as was expressly laid down by the Report. It was because of the uneconomic situation in which the coal industry was working that the Report said there was no escape from the situation except by immediate action and the reduction of working costs. The industry has already received a subsidy of £23,000,000 in order that the necessities of the case may be thoroughly examined, and the Report of the Commission has been issued. It may well be that in the case of the subsidy, some people profited by it who ought not to have done so. I think that subsidy shared those difficulties with subsidies which had been given before, and indeed it is very difficult in practice, and I hope it may never arise again that a large subsidy will be given to any industry. I have pointed out over and over again the impossibility of seeing that that does even justice, and it would be impossible for that burden to be borne by the still more unfortunate industries in the country.
5.0 P.M.
There were certain very practical difficulties which were raised among the points brought before me by the representatives of the Churches. It is not as simple a matter as it appears to contemplate the reappointment of the Royal Commission with a view to that body working out the details of the terms of a reorganisation scheme and a reference to wages in their Report, the results to be incorporated by the Commission in a Parliamentary Bill or Bills. The impossibility of such a proposal as this was pointed out with great force and effect by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Carnarvon, and this is the only quotation I will make, because it puts the matter in better language than I can use. Speaking in the House of Commons in August, 1919, referring to the Sankey Commission, the right hon. Gentleman, after pointing out that the reference to that Commission included two separate classes of subjects, one an immediate question—the question of the hours of labour, said:
The others were great questions of policy relating to the conditions of industry and the best method of working it—its organisation, questions of waste in the present system of working, the social conditions under which the miners live, nationalisation of minerals, State ownership and management of mines, and co-operation of the workers in the control of the industry. Those were gigantic questions of policy. Some of my hon. Friends and many outside seem to assume that when a Government appoints a Commission, it is in honour bound to accept all its recommendations and to put them into operation. I never heard of that doctrine in the whole history of the House of Commons. There have been multitudes of questions referred to Royal Commissions. There have been some whose recommendations have been legislated upon, and there have been many in which this was not done. But even taking those where the Government and Parliament immediately took action, it has never been suggested that the Legislature was bound to take every recommendation exactly in the form in which it was made…. I never uttered a syllable which would commit the Government, and certainly not Parliament—which I had no right to do—to accept any recommendation made by the Royal Commission upon every subject referred to it. I said the Government would give respectful consideration and attach due weight to everything the Commission reported. That I have done. There are certain questions which you can refer to arbitration—questions of wages and of hours of labour—and the Government treated the Sankey Commission as practically the arbitrator in respect of the questions of hours and of wages. But when it comes to a great question of policy, that was a totally different matter…. That would have been an abrogation of the functions of Parliament and of Government." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th August, 1919; cols. 2001-1, Vol. 119.]
I think that that was very well and very fairly stated, and I quote it to show what I think must be the view of every Government. I want to remind the House that the present Government, having that Report—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I point out that the Prime Minister, after he had read it, undertook to accept that
Report and to legislate upon its recommendations, provided the parties accepted; so I assume the Government had considered the recommendations and were prepared then to put them into operation.

The PRIME MINISTER: I was just coming to that, and was trying to draw from it the lesson that I had been much more generous than the right hon Gentleman. The present Government offered to give effect to all the recommendations of the Report, distasteful as some of them were to the Government, if they could thereby secure peace. We tailed. In spite of this, the Government have introduced a Bill, which will become law in a few days, giving effect to every one of the Commission's recommendations requiring legislative action except two, which could not conceivably make the slightest difference to the immediate situation. [interruption.] I would point this out to hon. Members. At the time that the offer was made, and during the discussions we had with both the parties, they could, if they had then co-operated with us, have joined with us in helping to frame the action taken upon the recommendations of the Report. But they would not help us, and that is why we had to legislate without help. It is a little hard on the Government if hon. Members opposite, who represent a party that would not co-operate at that time, should blame us for having fallen short in any way from the interpretation they would have placed upon various recommendations in the Report, Having got to the point where we are now, it is a little difficult to understand how it should be necesary to have a new subsidy in order that detailed schemes of re-organisation could be worked out. It is no sign of weakness, even now, to enter into negotiations. A decision to enter into negotiations is really a sign of recognising the rights and the responsibilities of leadership. Even now, as I have said before, the door is open to negotiation. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we said at the beginning of these struggles that, if the two parties, as was said in the Report, agreed, we would legislate on the question of hours. There was no negotiation; there was nothing going on; and it seemed to the
Government, after mature consideration, not that we had any price paid to us, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—but that, as I have explained to the House over and over again, when the parties did come to negotiate, it would be found in the case of certain districts that no wages reduction could ensure those districts starting, and, by the very hardship of the case, negotiations must take place in certain cases on hours, if not on hours and wages, unless an agreement were come to that certain parts of those districts should be allowed to go entirely derelict.
We have proceeded—in addition to what we have included in the Bill which will be discussed again to-morrow—with the consideration of other steps recommended in the Report, and we have taken action now upon certain recommendations which did not require immediate legislation. Now the right hon. Gentleman, and sometimes Members sitting opposite—and possibly some this afternoon will do the same—seem to think that it is a dilatory proceeding on our part to set up that very admirable and competent Committee which we have set up to examine the question of sales. I really do not now what alternative there is. There has never been anything of the kind covering a whole great industry, or even part of a whole great industry, so that there is very little experience in this country to go upon. For Parliament to attempt to legislate on a subject so closely touching the daily life and business of an industry without the fullest knowledge would be an act of lunacy, and it would only result in disaster later on. The name and character of the chairman and members of that Committee show at least that the subject will be examined right through to the bottom, and I think we may hope that, whatever the results of their deliberations may be, they will, at any rate, be practicable, and will be justified by the evidence that they are able to procure. They are meeting for the first time this afternoon. Then we are asking a number of influential persons to form a Fuel and Power Council, as recommended by the Commission. The Commission recommended a systematic extension of research and experiment bearing on the problems connected with the industry. We are devoting and developing our own work on the utilisation of coal and the
study of fuel as rapidly as the necessary research workers can be got together The present programme involves an expenditure this year more than twice that of four years ago, and, as the programme develops, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's permission, the expenditure will grow. The Mining Industry Bill gives the Research Department power—[Interruption].

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was heard in perfect silence.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government has decided to provide additional money to help private initiative if it is seriously anxious to help research. If the coalowners set up a really adequate organisation for co-operative research into coal winning and all that belongs to it, the Government will do their part, and, if really promising methods of producing smokeless fuel and oil on an economic basis are set up, the Government will help to prove out the plant on a commercial scale. There, again, progress is being made, but many people are too apt to jump at what we may hope to see from this research in a few years' time, and imagine that this autumn or winter results which will inevitably come in time can be obtained at once. The purchasing Departments of the Government are prepared to buy from the output of any new plants at the market price. The Government proposals cover the whole ground of the chapter on research. [Interruption.] I venture to suggest that there is a heavy responsibility resting on leaders to-day who are not willing to come into the negotiations—[Inter-teruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Committee wishes to hear the Prime Minister to the end, and there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members later.

The PRIME MINISTER: I mentioned a few moments ago the suggestion that the miners were prepared to consider, or, if you like, to have, arbitration. The suggestion was linked up, as I showed, with other matters. I have been told that it stands by itself, but there is no difficulty in proceeding, so far as I know, with arbitration, if the parties think that it is a better and more expeditious method of reaching a settlement than by ordinary negotiation and settling between them-
selves. In this country we have, perhaps, been rather cautious in adopting arbitration. I think that that is a sign of very healthy independence. But there have been many occasions when, for one reason or another, it has not proved possible to reach a settlement, and the good sense of all parties has agreed that it is better to place the facts before an impartial tribunal, whether by way of a committee or a chairman, and to accept its decision as an alternative to the long and costly method of continuing a strike. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though there were no alternative but to go on until, as he expressed it, the miners were beaten or forced to their knees.

Mr. BATEY: That is what you want.

The PRIME MINISTER: No one on this side of the House wants, or ever has wanted, that. Negotiation can be started. There is nothing to stop it. There is nothing to stop negotiation at all. There have been many forms of arbitration and many forms of tribunal. There has never been ally difficulty in setting up a fair and impartial tribunal on lines that have conformed to the views of those concerned in the dispute. I do not see why there should be any greater difficulty to-day. Such a tribunal, under an independent chairman, has masses of information before it which have been gathered together, partly as the result of the discussions in the last few months, partly as the result of the elaborate system of joint investigation which has been carried on now for some time past.
I know the importance that is attached to reorganisation, although I have to utter some words as a caveat on that subject, but I cannot conceive why such a tribunal should not begin by making up its mind what would be the probable effect upon the economic position of the industry of the various proposals included in the Bill that is now going through Parliament, and of the subjects to be discussed by the various Committees which have been set up. The Committee could then satisfy itself on this point before proceeding to reach conclusions as to the question of wages or hours. A policy of that kind seems to me to be well fitted to bring about a reasonable and equitable settlement. There has been no discussion yet between the two parties
of any kind because the break occurred before they had got down to it, or even got near to it. It seems to me that now both parties are in a much better position to do that. There is only one word that perhaps I might add. Supposing the two parties would come together for negotiation or for arbitration, we would do all in our power to help. We cannot impose legislative settlements—[An HON. MEMBER: "You did with hours!"] That is not a settlement. There has been no negotiation at all as to whether, inside that, with any modification a settlement may be possible to be reached. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have said neither side could settle!"] I felt that three months ago. I cannot see now why they should not. They have both been through a term of bitter experience, and if it is not possible for men to learn by passing through a term of bitter experience, indeed I should lose hope that they might ever learn wisdom.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I think everyone in the House and outside it who has been waiting with considerable expectation for the statement the Prime Minister was to make will have heard it, and will read it, with profound dissatisfaction. My first great difficulty is this. What does it mean? The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten, at least, for four-fifths of his speech, that we are in the middle of a very disastrous trade dispute, and that the purpose of this Debate, if it serves any purpose at all, is to try to make some contribution to the termination as quickly as possible of that dispute. He finishes up by saying—how easy it is for any of us to say it—why cannot the two sides negotiate? Why? Very largely owing to the right hon. Gentleman himself. When he was reminded by my hon. Friend behind me in an interjection about what he himself said, that the two sides could not successfully negotiate, really it is not enough for him to say he said that a week or two ago, and he hopes they are both wiser than they were when he spoke last. He knows as well as I do that the history of this trade, the experience of this trade, is not going to make negotiations possible between those two sides themselves either to-day or tomorrow or the next day. I am certain the Prime Minister knows that. More-
over, when he went on elaborating that point he mixed up negotiation with arbitration. Does he mean to tell this House and the country that he believes that either the owners or the men at the present moment are prepared to accept arbitration? I am sure he does not. Does he mean to say that at the end of a 13 weeks' dispute either side, whether it is the winning side or the losing side, is going to bind itself, not for the termination of this dispute, but beyond the termination of this dispute, for a period of time after this dispute? The suggestion made by the Prime Minister to-day to arbitrate is not the Bishop's suggestion, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman. I am aware he seems to have taken a prejudice against the Bishops since they ceased to preach piety.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): As a personal remark, I say that is an absolutely unwarranted and unwarrantable statement.

Mr. MacDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the proposal made by the Prime Minister regarding arbitration, dissociated from the other provisions of the Bishops' statement, was not the proposal made by the Bishops. He knows perfectly well that the Bishops never would make such a suggestion. It is absolutely futile. What is the position? What has he done? The right hon. Gentleman has nothing whatever to say on the dispute as it is to-day. He has told us this proposal was made to him through the medium of the Ecclesiastical representatives. What has he done? He has simply rejected it sans phrase—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —and those who believe that this dispute should be carried out to an abominable finish are the only people who say "Hear, hear." I know one of the great complaints of the Tory party was that there was a certain gentleman about of the name of Mr. Cook. One person who is supposed to think of nothing except to prolong the strike! There are serried ranks in front of me, and no one has led them more successfully than the Government.
We ought to know two things. We ought to have this clear. Does the Government believe in the Royal Commission's Report or does it not? If it
believes in the Royal Commission's Report, when is it going to carry it into effect? The other thing we want to know is this. Does the Government believe in peace? The Government has had offer after offer and opportunity after opportunity given it to make peace—[Interruption]—not the peace the hon. Member below the gangway and his friends would like I admit, but a peace which would have some modicum of justice embodied in it. Again and again they have had their opportunity. Again and again the Prime Minister has said, here and outside, that he wishes for peace, and from the beginning of the struggle to this moment he has never lifted his little finger for peace. It is very hard for me to say that. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to go on.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am prepared to repeat it. What is the position to-day, to go back upon this point of negotiation? The Prime Minister says to both sides: "Why do you not begin negotiating?" Why did he not stand out of the negotiations until such time as the owners showed their hand? What is the use of the Prime Minister talking about going to the miners now to negotiate after he has put a bludgeon into the hands of the owners? If the Prime Minister had said to both sides four weeks ago, "Go into negotiations," the owners then were not armed with the eight-hours day to force upon the negotiations. He has, first of all, handed over a weapon to the owners. He has equipped them with knuckle dusters. Then he comes up this afternoon, in the thirteenth week of this deplorable struggle, having armed one side, and says to both sides, "Why not negotiate?" Miners are human, and miners feel things quite as much as I know hon. Members opposite do. They feel the remark I made just now. The miners have been feeling exactly the same way, and it is no use talking in the way the Prime Minister talked during the latter part of his speech, because it is not going to bring peace, and it is not going to help to goodwill in the industry.
The Government really ought to make it clear what its position regarding the
Commission's Report is. First of all, regarding wages, the Commission's Report has been violated by every step the Government took before and since the lock-out has taken place. The Royal Commission has said quite definitely that wages will have to fall. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you accept that?"] The Royal Commission has said that in its opinion wages must fall. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you accept that?"] But the Royal Commission at the same time said no sacrifice ought to be asked. The Government violated that condition of the Royal Commission's Report from the very beginning of the negotiations. That is perfectly plain. Whether the miners are going to be prepared to accept a reduction of wages or not remains to be seen; but before they accept any reduction in wages they are perfectly entitled to say to the Government, "You must give us some security that if that reduction is to be accepted by us, all the opportunities to obviate, it must first be explored in the industry." That is the Report of the Royal Commission. I raised this question before, and I took this line; the Government took the other line. The Samuel Memorandum, which was issued after the calling off of the general strike, supports me rather than the Government in that respect.
I am amazed at the Prime Minister's excuse and apology for himself in regard to the question of hours. The Royal Commission's Report says that hours must not be touched until there is agreement between the two sides. The Prime Minister knows that perfectly well. "Ah," says the Prime Minister, "in exploring the ground I came to the conclusion, my colleagues, my Cabinet came to the conclusion, that in a settlement which was to be economic hours had to be dealt with. Therefore, pending their coming together, I thought that I would change the law and allow the negotiators on behalf of the owners to bring an eight-hour day into the negotiations." Is that carrying out the Royal Commission's Report? If the miners had accepted the Royal Commission's Report, and carried it out in that way, there would have been nobody who would have been more righteously indignant than the Prime Minister himself about the miners having broken their word and their bond. The Bill which will be before us again this
week—the Mining Industry Bill—is not the Royal Commission's Report and is not the Royal Commission's recommendations. It as nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am willing to end my sentence there, but I prefer to go on and to say that it is nothing but an encouragement to the owners to suit their own personal interests and amalgamate where there is profit, not for the miners but for themselves, profit not for the nation or their own pockets, and to refuse to amalgamate when that profit does not exist. They can do that now. It is true that the stamp will cost one penny or twopence less under the Bill than it would have done had the Bill never been passed.
The Government have never accepted the Royal Commission's Report, except in words. From the beginning to the end of the negotiations the Government have never carried out the Royal Commission's Report. In their legislation the Government have violated the Royal Commission's Report. In their handling of Mr. Herbert Smith, at the opening of the negotiations, before the lock-out took place, they violated the provisions of the Royal Commission's Report. Yet this Government repeatedly states, with the same sort of uncertainty that characterises the English weather, "We are in favour of the Royal Commission's Report." It is true that they said at first—they have not always given this qualification—that they accepted it providing the other two sides did the same. Of the other two sides the owners never accepted it. The only party that came near to an attempt at acceptance was the miners. [Laughter and HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Hon. Members are not more amused at me than I am at them. I repeat that the miners are the only party that offered at the beginning a tentative acceptance. [Interruption.]

Mr. HOPKINSON: Oh!

Mr. MacDONALD: Certainly.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very specific statement. He has said that the miners accepted the Report, and that owners did not.

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member surely does not assume that I had
finished my argument on that point. The only barrier between the hon. Member getting his information from me was the interjections of his own side.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Which is my side?

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member's side is his own, I admit. The hon. Member seemed to be surprised that I should have used the expression "tentative acceptance." Hon. Members opposite must appreciate the fact that at that time the negotiations were about to be entered upon. Mr. Herbert Smith and his friends were to be the leaders of the negotiations on one side. In these circumstances, does anyone mean to say that before the court was constituted and before the case on either side was stated, either the owners or the miners were going to say exactly what they would accept? Certainly not. What did Mr. Smith say? My right hon. Friend has quoted him. I heard him. Mr. Herbert Smith said: "I am prepared to consider the Report from A to Z"—that was the original form of his statement—"and I am willing to abide by the findings."

Mr. HOPKINSON: His findings.

Mr. MacDONALD: Is the hon. Member having a joke? Is this Debate a sort of country fair or is it the House of Commons Mr. Smith's statement was as I have said. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say what does that mean? [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he mean?"] What did he mean? Was it not the duty of your Government, 13 weeks ago, to bind him down to it, and to say, "What did you mean?" Instead of that they closed their doors because of some mishappening at the "Daily Mail" office, and they never said a word about the statement and never followed it up. They never took the least step to find out what he meant. They closed the doors, and then said that whilst the general strike lasted no negotiations could take place. Again and again they have had the same opportunity. The other night, on the Third Reading of the Eight Hours Bill, when we still had the matter before us, the Prime Minister wound up by a formula, a rather familiar one, which was taken up next day by the newspapers as though it were an offer for peace. Some of my colleagues round about me also thought
it was an offer for peace. I did not. It was not an offer for peace. Yet, if that Bill, in the interests of the miners and in the interests of peace had been suspended for a couple of days, there was a good chance of something being done. It had to be suspended next day in the House of Lords because their friends, apparently, sold them and were not willing to deliver the goods.
If that Bill had been held up for a couple of days, after it had gone through this House, to allow the expectation that centred round the Prime Minister's statement next morning to be explored, it was possible that something might have been done. When the Bill was introduced it was well known that various attempts were being made and had gone a little way towards providing some way in which the difficulties might have been surmounted; but the moment the Bill was introduced, every door to negotiation was closed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) three times in this House made suggestions for peace. You cannot ignore these things. Those of us who feel that opportunity after opportunity has been missed by this Government cannot ignore these things. Hon. Members opposite apparently think that the only thing that will satisfy them is that one side should surrender absolutely. If you put up a proposal, a very absolute one like a slogan, or one that errs on the other side by being too small, we are told that that is no good. Everybody who has been engaged in negotiations of this kind knows perfectly well that that is always how negotiations start. Either you put up something you are prepared to argue upon, or you put out something which is a feeler. That will be the case until the judgment day. Any such proposal ought to be seized upon at once and made the basis of negotiations. That opportunity has been offered again and again in this House but everything has been rejected.
Here we are again, after 13 weeks. The Eight Hours Bill is an Act of Parliament. You think you are going to have a great victory, I suppose. You think that the Warwickshire men are going back. You think that you are going to have district agreements. The Prime Minister adumbrated that in his speech—district this way, district that way, district the other way. Perhaps he did not mean district agreements. I hope he
meant that that was going to modified on the basis of national agreement.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, exactly as set out in the Report.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am very glad that I have got that. Some of them would like to think that they are going to have district agreements, and to smash the, national agreement. I do not wish them joy of their achievement. I would much rather have an agreement, a settlement, something which will last. My own conviction is that in industrial affairs, as in international affairs, peace is the condition of progress. An agreement come to by methods of peace is something that has a foundation; an agreement, come to, or an acceptance, as the result of the stricken field has no foundation at all, and everybody is watching for an opportunity to upset it at whatever cost to themselves, their trade, or the nation. That is what the Government is facing now. I am sorry that the Prime Minister's speech was not more hopeful. It means nothing; it is no contribution to our immediate difficulties. You can go on appointing committees; they may be good committees or they may be bad committees you can go on making investigations, scientific and otherwise; that is all right, but it is not going to take one hour, not one single second, off this terrible dispute which is oppressing this nation, and threatening its very existence at the present time.
As to the eccleciastical suggestions, I do not agree with every word or with every principle, but I do agree in this—and this is what we should seize upon and build up into some system of peace—that there ought to be an interregnum during which work is being done. I do not see how you can avoid that or get it unless you are going to have some financial assistance from the Government. And the Prime Minister has said that he is willing to do it. After so many losses, he cannot say that he is not going to implement the promise he made three months ago to give at least £3,000,000. The losses every day are getting greater, and, if he can stop a loss of £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 by throwing into the mining industry £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, he is a good financier. If he is going to allow £10,000,000, £15,000,000, £20,000,000
or £30,000,000 to be lost not only by the coal trade—some hon. Members. may say they jolly well deserve it—but by the whole industries of our country, if the Prime Minister says he will not on account of his poverty find £3,000,000 in order to save £10,000,000 or £30,000,000, he may get the applause of his many followers, but he will not get the thanks of the industrial sections of the community.
A temporary, provisional period, with some form of public assistance, call it a subsidy or anything else you like—I do not like the word "subsidy," and I do not like the idea of a subsidy—which must be given, and then, at the end of that system, arbitration. I know there are difficulties; I know there are objections. Anyone in a debating society can put forward good objections, but we are not here to debate for debating sake, but to try and get the nation out of the difficulty in which it finds itself. Here we are in this difficulty. How are you going to get out of it? There is no way out so far as I can see except on the lines of what is known as the Bishop's offer, modified if you like; changed words, if you like; changed ideas, if you like. Why not get them together and discuss the whole thing, tell them what the Government is prepared to do, instead of quarrelling with the Church which has given us a much needed demonstration that it is not the organisation of the rich and the comfortable, but a great inspiring faith, whether it is established or non-established, with some application to the lives of the common people and has some contribution to make to the material uplifting as well as to the spiritual inspiration of the people? Why not take that view, thank them for their efforts, and determine to do everything we can to carry those efforts to a successful issue?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated very specifically that the Miners' Federation have accepted the Report of the Commission and that the owners have rejected it. I should like to know on what occasion the Miners' Federation accepted the recommendations of the Report and on what occasion the owners refused.

Mr. MacDONALD: I must apologise to the hon. Member for not replying to him immediately when I was speaking I was going to refer to what Mr. Herbert Smith said at the Memorial Hall on the Saturday morning before the General Strike was declared. He said that he would accept it; and nobody followed it up.

Mr. HOPKINSON: What Mr. Herbert Smith said was that he was quite ready to go through the Report, read it carefully, and then abide by the conclusions be reached.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. MacDONALD: Perhaps the hon. Member will take my word. I heard what Mr. Smith said, and I read it afterwards. He said much more than that.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I suggest we should refer to the written word when we get outside this House. What Mr. Herbert Smith said on that occasion was this, not in these words, but this is the effect: "I am prepared to go through that Report most carefully and to abide by any conclusions that I reach." [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong!"] In confirmation of this it must be realised that 48 hours later Mr. Herbert Smith and Mr. Cook, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, said that in no circumstances would they accept any reduction in wages or any extension of hours. Therefore, I take it that Mr. Smith's examination of the Report would not lead him to the conclusion that an immediate reduction of wages or an extension of hours was absolutely necessary in order to save the industry from disaster. With regard to the contention put forward that the owners did not accept the recommendations of the Commission, I endeavoured to get from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) what he meant by that statement, and I also endeavoured to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken as to what he meant. I say that neither of them have any ground whatsoever for making that very serious statement, and I am prepared to give way now if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will tell me in what particular the owners have refused to accept the recommendations of the Commission.

Mr. MacDONALD: The evidence is in innumerable forms, but I was thinking principally of the letter which the owners sent to the Prime Minister and which was communicated to the Miners' Federation on the Friday before the declaration of the general strike. The letter reached the Federation at a quarter-past one on the Friday afternoon.

Mr. HOPKINSON: In what way does that letter indicate that they refused to accept the Report?

Mr. MacDONALD: By demanding an eight-hours' day.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Report itself says that
should the miners prefer some extension of hours the Government, no doubt, will be prepared to authorise it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this is going in face of the Report? Does he say that the Government have gone against the Report in passing the Eight Hours Act? I ask the Committee really to consider the matter carefully. The Commission says that the necessary reduction in wages may be so drastic that the miners may prefer an extension of hours instead. Therefore, the passing of the Eight Hours Act is not going against the recommendation of the Commission, but rather is it to help forward their recommendations so that it may be possible in some of the exporting districts to avoid the terribly drastic reduction in wages which would otherwise be necessary. All the world knows what it would mean to South Wales without a subsidy on the basis of a seven-hours' day. It means a wage such as the South Wales owners refused to put forward as long as they possibly could, because it was such a miserable wage, and, therefore, when conditions in a district like South Wales were such that only a miserable wage could be offered, on a seven-hours' basis, surely sheer humanity demanded that some increase of hours should be put forward instead. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: In a Debate of this sort it is not to be expected that there will not be a certain amount of interruption, but, if it be carried to a point where argument is impossible, then the only conclusion is for me to report a state of disorder.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I am doing my best not to be provocative, but facts seem to be provocative to certain hon. Members opposite. I was trying to show that the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech were not correct, that neither of his statements was correct.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member read out the answers to the questions of the Miners' Federation and tell us whether the owners have accepted them or not?

Mr. HOPKINSON: I have the answers here, but there are four printed pages, and I think the Committee would prefer that I did not read them all.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member tell us how many times the owners say they agree and how many times they do not agree? I find that they agree eight time out of fourteen.

Mr. HOPKINSON: How can the owners say that they can agree to nationalise royalties? What on earth has it to do with the coalowners, or how can they introduce legislation to make it possible? And there are half-a-dozen other suggestions of that kind. The owners are not people so utterly lacking in modesty that they can undertake to introduce legislation in this House. If the hon. Member will look through their replies, he will find that in every case where they are called upon to do anything the owners say they are prepared to do it. What further acceptance than that is wanted I fail to understand.
6.0 P.M.
I have not finished with the right hon. Gentleman yet. His final suggestion was that the people of this country should go on paying the subsidy because it was cheaper—and here, again, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was with him— because it was cheaper to pay blackmail than to face the situation. I dare say that some people think it is cheaper to pay blackmail than to "call the bluff"; but I understand from the Prime Minister's speech that he prefers to "call the bluff" rather than pay the blackmail. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn). What were those proposals? Something
that he called "unification of the industry." He was quite unable to say what it meant, but the blessed word "unification" was good enough; it was an excellent catchword; it had the requisite number of syllables. And the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that is a possible basis of negotiation between the parties. [Interruption.] He specifically referred to the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Ogmore, and those suggestions were comprised in the word "unification," and nothing else, on both occasions.
Let us refer for a moment to what this Debate has turned upon mainly, what are called the Bishops' proposals. I notice that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and, I believe, the Prime Minister, referred to these Bishops and other clerics as the "representatives of the Christian Churches." In what way are they representative? Who put them in that position? Who formed the Industrial Christian Fellowship? Who elected them to represent the Churches? The whole thing arises in its present form from that remarkable document, the Archbishop Committee's Report on the relations of Christianity to industrial problems, when a certain number of people, some cleric and some lay, formed themselves into this body which now attempts to dictate to the people of England and to dictate on very foolish lines indeed. It may he thought that these gentlemen and these clerics have some spiritual ground for interference, but anyone who has read the literature which is published by the Industrial Christian Fellowship must agree, I think, that their claim to any spiritual authority is completely obliterated by what they publish. Take, for instance, the most striking point in the Manifesto of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, which is this:
We assert our belief that the moral and spiritual progress of the people demands that the best possible standard of living should everywhere be maintained.
I, being a mere pagan, do not deny this. It may be that no one can be good or make spiritual progress unless he is comparatively well-to-do: It may be true; but these ecclesiastical gentlemen are not paid their stipends for preaching that sort
of thing—that no one can be good unless he has gold or silver or brass in his purse; that no one can be good if he has only one coat, or if he has no shoes, and no staff; and, more than all, that no one can be good if he has "nowhere to lay his head." Whether that statement may be sound or not, it is not the sort of statement that we expect to hear from those who call themselves representatives of Christianity in this country. Again, they talk repeatedly of Christian Socialism. In fact, the Fellowship is the lineal descendant of the original Christian Socialists. How can one combine two such things in that way? How can one combine the Socialist belief that it is more blessed to receive than to give, with the Christian belief that "it is more blessed to give than to receive?"
Here we have so-called representatives of the Christian Church interfering with things which do not concern them—and which they certainly cannot understand from the evidence of their own proposals—which they put forward as representatives of Christianity, basing the whole of their appeal on the grossest and most utter materialism that has ever been preached, even from the Labour Benches opposite. Pretty representatives of the Christian Church! I have more to say about these gentlemen. We industrialists, if they had done their duty in times past, if they had given us a Christian country in which to build up our economic, industrial and political system—we would have built up an industrial system suitable for Christians; and the only reason why we have not done so is that they have so utterly failed in their own proper business, perhaps through interfering with other people's business, that we have not got a Christian nation in which to build up a Christian industrial system.
So much for that remarkable body which presumes to come in at this stage, and suggest, first of all, that we should yield to blackmail, and then, at the end of four months of paying blackmail, that we should find ourselves in exactly the same position as we are in now. If .arbitration could possibly be any good at the end of four months of paying blackmail, why on earth cannot arbitration be some good now? If Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith really mean an acceptance of these proposals, why on earth cannot they be asked
whether they will accept arbitration here and now, arbitration in full accord with the recommendations of the Report, which involve a most drastic reduction of wages, a reduction so drastic in some districts that the Commissioners themselves say that, distasteful though it is to have to allow an extension of hours, they feel it possible that some districts may have to accept an extension of hours in order to keep reductions of wages within reasonable limits?
Much has been heard of the recommendations of the Report for the reorganisation of the industry, and too little has been said, certainly by hon. Members opposite, about certain very much more specific and definite recommendations. For example, are we to follow out the recommendations of the Report for reconstruction while completely putting on one side this statement:
We think the continuance of the subsidy indefensible. The subsidy should stop at the end of its authorised term, and should never be repeated.
That is the sort of recommendation of which we do not hear much from this Committee of Bishops. Another very specific recommendation that we do not hear a great deal about is to be found on the following page.
If the present hours are to be retained we think a revision of the minimum percentage addition …. is indispensable. A disaster is impending over the industry, and the immediate reduction of working costs, that can be effected in this way, and in this way alone, is essential to save it.
How many hon. Gentlemen in the Labour party or the Liberal party have told us of those recommendations of the Report? How many moves towards a complete acceptance of the Report in these respects have been made by Messrs. Cook and Smith? Not very many. I have completely missed them myself.
Turn for a moment to a much more important thing, and one of more practical importance, and that is the fact, which seems to be fixed in the minds of a lot of non-technical people not Associated with the industry, that one has only to put into effect the proposals of the, Commission's Report, and .then almost instantaneously a state of peace and prosperity will reign in the industry. The Commission most specifically stated that the real trouble in the industry is that the costs of production are too high, with the present hours and wages. Hon.
Members of the Labour party will possibly remember that that is a very specific statement in the Report. The Commissioners say:
We are unanimously of opinion that the costs of production, with the present hours and wages, are greater than the industry will bear.
That being the case, it seems that the obvious remedy is to reduce the costs of production. Yet we get a series of proposals for reorganisation which, in the course of a generation or two, may possibly, although it is doubtful, have some effect upon the cost of producing coal, but, certainly, can have no effect whatsoever, except in the wrong direction, on the cost of producing coal in the next six months. For instance, take one or two cases. It is urged that holidays should be paid for. Is that going to reduce the cost of producing coal—by paying one week's or a fortnight's wages to the miner who is on holiday? Hon. Members opposite can possibly agree with me that the effect of that recommendation would be rather to raise the cost of production. It may be said that the moral effect will be so great that the men will strive to get much greater production. But everyone knows perfectly well that when holidays are near everyone is working his hardest in the pit to earn as much as possible for the holidays. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that a man will work harder than he does now, as a preliminary to taking a holiday, if he is paid for the holiday. The actual effect of this proposal would be an average rise in the cost of producing coal of about 5d. per ton. There is another suggestion:
The general establishment of pit-head baths is necessary. This should be undertaken by the Miners' Welfare Fund, which should be increased by a substantial contribution from royalties.
Why that particular injustice should be perpetrated the Commission does not say. There is the proposal nevertheless. Does anyone suggest that a contribution from royalties and the taking of a .proportion of the welfare money is going to reduce the cost of producing coal? Not likely. Here is another suggestion:
For all new collieries, a proper provision of houses for the workers should be a condition of the lease.
Every, one knows that when a. new colliery is opened the owners have to build houses for their workmen, or else they do not
get the men. But raising the standard of housing is another matter, and, however desirable it may be on general grounds, if it has to be paid for by the industry it will certainly not reduce the cost of getting coal. On the contrary, it will be a further capital charge on the production of coal, and will have an influence in the opposite direction.
So, if you go through practically every proposal of the Commission you get the same thing—no appreciable reduction of costs in any case, and in several cases a very material increase. Therefore, what hope is there of putting the industry on a better basis, on an economic basis, in the course of the next year or two, simply by carrying out all the recommendations of the Report? That was the attitude adopted by the Mining Association of Great Britain from the start. When the Prime Minister said that if both parties would accept the Report he was willing to accept it and to pass the necessary legislation, the Mining Association of Great Britain took the same view as the Prime Minister.
They did not like the recommendations; they did not think the recommendations were any use, and I venture to say that nobody intimately concerned with the coal industry really does believe that these recommendations can possibly put the industry on an economic basis; but, for the sake of peace, just like the Prime Minister, they were willing to swallow the whole lot and they did so. They did not get any response, although the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that Mr. Herbert Smith accepted the recommendations of the Report. No doubt that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, but, despite that, I think myself that the general public and certainly the Prime Minister were under the impression that they refused to accept that Report, and most of us are under that impression still. "Not a cent. off the pay, not a second on the day" does not really represent a definite and heart-whole acceptance of the Report.
I have laboured this point about the recommendations, and I have done so because they have never been dealt with fully in the House of Commons, and the result has been that both Members of the House of Commons and the public outside, and the newspapers in particular,
are still hanging on to the absurd idea that by some miraculous means, if we carry out these recommendations, the coal industry is going to be placed on its feet and restored to an economic basis at once and possibly that the April rates of wages with a seven-hour day can be paid economically. The whole idea is so utterly preposterous to those who know, that it is just as well that somebody—even so humble an individual as myself—should publicly state that there is absolutely nothing in the way of an appreciable reduction in cost to be got by putting into effect every single one of the recommendations of the Commission.
The only one that might benefit the coal industry, but would do so in a very dangerous way, is the recommendation about selling combinations and syndicates. That is a very dangerous proposal indeed. When most of our heavy industries, and steel and iron in particular, are just keeping their heads above water with the utmost difficulty, against foreign competition, are we deliberately to set out by Act of Parliament to create rings and trusts in the coal industry and to put up the cost of fuel against industries which can hardly bear the burden as it is—and to do that, mark you, on behalf of an industry where the workers are very much better paid and have shorter hours than the wretched people employed in the other heavy industries? Surely it is enough that the steel workers, the engineers, the cotton workers and all the others have been paying week by week, almost, I might say, year by year, because of the enormous subsidies granted in times past by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—subsidies compared with which last year's subsidy looks comparatively small—must be remembered. Surely it is enough that these subsidies should have come out of the pockets of very much worse-paid workers. I say that the great point of the Commission's Report to which the country will hold is, that no subsidy shall be paid by poor men for the benefit of other men who are better off. I venture also to say, because I may criticise the Government in a way in which Members behind me cannot do, that if the Prime Minister had made that fact perfectly clear at an early date this unhappy dispute would have been practically over at the present time.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Did the hon. Member ever record any protest against this iniquitous procedure last year?

Mr. HOPKINSON: I was absent from the House, but I may say that members of the Government did consult me about it. They wanted opinions upon it—even the most humble opinion—and I advised them strongly to face the music and not to give a subsidy. I was not in the House when the subsidy was discussed.
I do think that the Government have, from time to time taken steps—perhaps they had reasons of which I am not aware —which have had the effect of unduly prolonging this dispute. The holding up of the Eight Hours Bill in this House and in another place undoubtedly protracted this unhappy dispute. There was no possibility whatever of a settlement of any kind in the South Wales area on the seven-hour day. I think if one could get the opinions of the miners' leaders in South Wales, they would agree that the wages payable on the seven-hour basis in South Wales, under present conditions, were such that they would not have cared, even under the pressure of starvation, to ask their men to accept them. On the contrary, the wages payable, with the extra hour, in South Wales are wages which many workers in this country would be only too glad to earn; they are wages at the rate that was being paid in 1921 when the cost of living was much higher than it is to-day, and there are millions of workers who would be only too glad to get back to the 1921 basis of wages and to enjoy the higher standard of living which the lower cost of living has rendered possible. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite have anything to say, and if they rise to say it, I shall be pleased to give way. I am not like the right hon. Gentleman their leader, who will not give way when his assertions are challenged.

Mr. SPENCER: A great deal has been said about the owners accepting the recommendations of the Commission. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the owners' reply to No. 1 Recommendation, taken along with their reply to No. 8 Recommendation, can be said to be an acceptance of the Commission's recommendations generally? I ask the hon. Gentleman how he reconciles those two replies.

Mr. HOPKINSON: No. 1 Recommendation is:
Before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry, it shall be definitely agreed between them that all practicable means for improving its organisation, and increasing its efficiency should be adopted as speedily as the circumstances in each case allow.
The owners' reply is:
The owners, for their part, are prepared to do everything in their power to improve the organisation and increase the efficiency of the industry.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member now turn to No. 8?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The recommendation is:
The amalgamation of many of the present small units of production is both desirable and practicable. This may often be effective from within, but in many cases it will only take place if outside assistance is given. Any general measure of compulsory amalgamation on arbitrary lines would he mischievous.
The owners' reply is:
The owners agree with the views expressed by the Commission that any general measure of compulsory amalgamation would be mischievous"—
Is that enough?

Mr. SPENCER: No, go on! The hon. Member is coming to the nice bit.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The reply continues:
and the best results are to be obtained where the initiative comes from the undertakings concerned. The owners note that the recommendation which the Commission make as to legislation is dealt with in the Government's declaration and, as in the case of the proposal for the nationalisation of minerals, with which it is connected, it does not arise for discussion between owners and workmen but becomes a question for Parliament.

Mr. SPENCER: May I ask the hon. Member is it not really a question between workmen and owners; and, in view of that reply, how can it be said that the owners have definitely agreed, as is suggested, to Recommendation No. 1. It is preposterous.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the recommendation. The recommendation is that certain legislation might well be passed by the Government to compel amalgamation in certain cases and the owners naturally reply "We do not pass legislation that is a matter for Parliament."

Mr. SPENCER: In the first recommendation you have to deal with the measures that have to be taken before any sacrifices are asked from those engaged in the industry. Those measures include reorganisation, but when you get to reorganisation, and especially to amalgamation, the owners immediately say, "This is a question with which the men have nothing to do." How can you say, in view of that statement, that they have accepted these recommendations?

Mr. HOPKINSON: Neither the coal-owners nor the men have anything to do with what legislation the Government will pass. This is a recommendation for legislation and the Government in the first instance said they were prepared to carry it out and they have been carrying it out in the Mining Industry Bill. If the hon. Member thinks it is a rejection of the Report because the Mining Association of Great Birtain refuses to pledge itself to pass legislation, I suggest that this Committee will not be in agreement with him. The point remains that we must disabuse our mind of any idea that one part of the Commission's Report can be taken separate from another, part; that is to say that these proposals for reorganisation, in any way, conflict with that very specific statement which I have already read that the cost of production must be reduced at once and that the only way which the Commission sees of reducing these costs is by a reduction of the wages cost on coal. The Commission gives some very valuable tables in support of that view.
One feature that is very prominent in this Report is that again and again the Commission say one thing on one page and say something diametrically opposed to that, on another page. For instance, on page 293 they said:
1925 is probably more nearly typical than any other year since the war.
That is in regard to the basis of coal prices.
In the immediate future it is difficult to see any outside force that is likely to lift coal prices materially above their present level. They may so rise, but it is unsafe to count on this. The minimum wage cannot safely be fixed with reference to anything more.
That is the whole basis of their recommendation on this point, but elsewhere in connection with the reduction of
wages which they contemplate the argument is that the price is going to rise considerably. I merely give the Committee that particular example of what is throughout the Report the very curious phenomenon, that you get on one page a statement specifically on the one side of the argument and on another page you get a statement which is equally specifically on the other side of the argument. The carrying out of a Report of this sort is a very difficult thing for so sorely harassed an industry as the coal industry.
The nation as a whole has come to the conclusion that it is not going to pay blackmail any more. It has had enough of that, particularly if those sums of money are to be given to the better-paid man by the worse-paid man, so that I think we may take it, from the Prime Minister's speech, that the subsidy is knocked on the head once and for all. It is a great pity that it was not knocked on the head as soon as the Report was issued because, in that event, the coalfields of Great Britain would be at work at the present moment and prosperity would be coming back to the other industries of our country. That being the case, we can now get the industry on an economic basis and miners will find that the coalowners of Great Britain are prepared to listen most patiently to any suggestions differing from the suggestions which they themselves have put forward in the various districts.
It may be that their intention in not putting forward their suggestions on a seven-hour basis was in order to avoid drastic cuts in wges, and I think everybody must admit, in their heart of hearts, that such cuts would have been necessary in the exporting districts, and particularly in South Wales. But if the miners concerned, in one district or another, come to the conclusion that they would sooner have it "half and half "—a bit off the wages and a bit on the hours—they will find plenty of owners to negotiate with them on that basis. The whole thing is to make the industry self-supporting so that it does not become a pauper industry taking the pence of the poor in other industries. Once we get upon an economic basis, now that the intolerable, burden upon the industry of the seven-hour day has been removed by legislation,
we can trust those who direct this industry to see that the conditions in it shall be better and happier in the future than they have ever been in the past. Those of us who have been intimately concerned in this industry for many years know that in it, more than in any other trade, there has already grown up that new spirit which we all desire to see—the spirit which makes the directors of a great industrial concern regard it as a trusteeship for the good of the country and the benefit of those employed in it.
Everyone in the mining industry must know case after case where whole districts depend upon the prosperity and the wise conduct of some colliery concern. We all know of cases where there are populations of almost 100,000 persons directly dependent for their whole living on the pits in the neighbourhood, and cases of 25,000 and 30,000 population directly dependent on one colliery are comparatively common. We know of many cases where those who direct the collieries in question direct them far less as commercial concerns than as principalities, in which they are rulers, not for their own benefit, but rather to ensure the happiness and prosperity of their people. It is no easy thing, it is no soft job, if I may put it that way, to be responsible in these days for the very livelihood of scores of thousands of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen. That responsibility has been taken up in the right spirit in many instances, and I cannot help thinking that as time goes on those who have lagged behind in regarding industry from the point of view which I have so briefly indicated will be brought up to the same pace as those who are at present the real leaders in industry—those who regard industry, as I say, as a principality, to be ruled for the good of its inhabitants, and not merely as a constant source of ever-increasing income for themselves.

Mr. HARNEY: The first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), to which we have just listened, formed an elaborate philippic from the hon. Member to the clergy, from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, and the last part of it was an equally elaborate censure on the Report. For my part, I regard this question as a very serious one. Not only is its gravity brought home to me by my
sense, in common with that of the rest of the community, of its appalling effects upon our industrial prosperity, but representing, as I do, a mining constituency, I cannot but be deeply affected by the personal touch that I there have in seeing thousands of men, quite as decent, and quite as reputable, and quite as level-headed as the hon. Member for Mossley, who are content to go on, day after day, suffering great misery, and persisting, in spite of all sorts of pressure being put upon them, because they genuinely believe they are right. It is merely beating the air for the hon. Member, following what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War said in another Debate the other day, to say that substantially the Report of the Commission is being carried out. That is wholly untrue.
The salient features of that Report I number as five. The first is that all the minerals should be acquired by a Coal Commission, which would then be empowered to deal with the conditions that render the working of the leases most favourable. It was not the sixpenny saving that the Commission were thinking about, but about wages, about the handicap of royalties, about the psychological effect that these things have upon the men, and about the difficulties which stand in the way of a real amalgamation until you have the minerals so handled. That has been thrown absolutely aside. Take the second—amalgamation. They went out of their way to emphasise that you will never have the sort of amalgamation they desired and thought necessary if you leave it to the initiative of the owners. It is left to the initiative of the owners. In the third place, they recommended municipal selling, which has been jeered at by the hon. Member for Mossley. I know nothing about its advantages and disadvantages, but, being more modest than the hon. Member, I am prepared to submit my judgment to that of experts on the subject. Fourthly, they specifically laid it down that the men are not to be asked to suffer less favourable conditions until the work of reorganisation has been set about. What have the Government done? They say: "Suffer the unfavourable conditions now, and we will think about reorganisation." Lastly, in four or five pages of closely reasoned matter, the Commission show
that the eight-hours day would be disastrous. The Government bring forward a special Bill to introduce the eight-hours day. That is the way in which the Government have dealt with the Report.
Now let us see what the owners have always been demanding. Ever since the 1919 Act the owners have been imploring a return to the eight hours' day. They have got their way. The owners have always been saying: "Hands off, Government. Leave the men to us, to economic laws, to 'the dismal science,' and all will go well." That is pretty well the attitude that is now being taken. The owners have said: "We do not think the Report is a solution of the difficulty." I ask earnestly those who do me the favour of listening: Can they wonder that the miners throughout the country are saying: "We have been sold. There is but one voice heard in the Cabinet, and that is the voice of the owners"? Notwithstanding that the Sankey Commission, the Land Acquisition Commission, and the Samuel Commission, one and all, said: "These mines that are unprofitable are so because of the percentage that are badly managed, badly equipped, and badly organised, and if you are to set this industry on its feet, the point to attack is the managers', the capitalists', the owners' side, and not the men's side," what do they find? They find the Government turning a listening ear to every word the owners say, and telling us now that the way to reform that industry and put it on its legs is not by putting any burden on the side that alone is responsible, where the fault lies, but to say: "Men, strain your backs and tighten your belts in order to remedy the difficulty." I make no pretence of having the knowledge that the hon. Member for Mossley pretends to have, but I say, as an ordinary, common-sense person of the world, that when experts are picked for their scientific knowledge by the Government, study the question for months, and then give out a Report, with all due respect to him, I think their views are more worth hearing.
I submit to this Committee that the Government have brought all the disasters, in the midst of which we are now suffering, upon us by really beginning the solution of this thing at the wrong end. I have little doubt myself that had they come forward manfully
and said: "We do not see eye to eye with the Commission, but these gentlemen have been our nominees; the subject is a complex one; they have gone into it and we have not; we asked the country to give us millions of money while they were working out their solution; they have given us their views, and we will accept them"—had they said that, they would then have got a listening ear from the men if they had turned to them and said: "Miners throughout Britain, we are prepared, here and now, to set about really doing what the Commission recommend, but we ask your co-operation, as we ask that of the owners, to put up with some little loss or inconvenience while the readjustment is being made. "I am as convinced, as I am that I hold this paper in my hand, that the pits would now be open with very little assistance from the Government, and ill-feeling would never have been created. And then, if the reorganisation had been carried out and it was found that, in fact, the majority of the pits would not pay under present conditions of labour and wages, I have no doubt the men would bow to the inevitable, because they would then know that they had had a fair deal, and that it was up to them, as during the War, to suffer something for the good of the whole community.

Mr. HOPKINSON: That is exactly what the Government said, and the miners refused it, point blank.

Mr. HARNEY: Why does the hon. Member make an interruption so often, when he is answered and shown to be wrong so often? Once more, if he will pardon me saying so, he is totally wrong there. I could give him a document that would take a long time to read, but it is in the recollection of everybody who read the Report that what occurred was this: The Government said: "If you two, mineowners and miners, agree to the recommendations, we will accept them." That was not what the Commission said. They said, on the contrary: "The only way to right this position is for the Government to take it in hand and legislate." They said particularly, for instance, with regard to the grouping of the mines: "It will never be done, and in 20 years it will be just as bad, if you leave it to those
engaged in the industry. The only thing is for you, the Government, to take it in hand yourselves and do it."

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Government promised to do it.

Mr. HARNEY: The Government did not promise to do it. If you ask me to do a certain thing, and I say: "I will agree to do it, if A and B both ask me to do it," is that the same thing?

Mr. HOPKINSON: It is in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Commission.

Mr. HARNEY: Now, that being the position, and to all of us who look at this question earnestly, and not frivolously, and who make speeches not for the purpose of showing their extraneous and irrelevant wisdom about ecclesiastical and other matters, the question is not "What has been done in the past?" but "What can be done to-day?" In my submission, it is not too late to make amends. Every Member on the Government Bench who is true to himself must acknowledge that their plan, so far, has failed. The hope entertained was to run through the Eight Hours Bill and to post up on the pitheads that the men could go back to work on the pre-stoppage terms, if they would work an hour longer, and it was thought that greed would overcome resistance. It did not. The men have not gone back anywhere, except a few thousand in Warwickshire, where practically they have been bribed by higher wages. Every candid member of the Government and of the Opposition must know that the plan about the eight hours has failed. The Church has come along. The hon. Member opposite says, "Oh, do not mind the Church; they are nobody. The Archbishop of Canterbury, compared with the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), is a poor fool." Really, had the country the advantage of making the hon. Member himself Archbishop of Canterbury, he would have so worked out his Christian doctrines that there would have been no industrial strife at all.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a signatory to the document.

Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member mentioned the Archbishop as well.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not mention the Archbishop.

Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member said the signatories of this document were following out what the Archbishop of Canterbury said.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not say that. It had nothing to do with the Archbishop, who was not on the Committee.

Mr. HARNEY: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, that, of course, there is a limit to ecclesiastical activities, the same as there is to secular activities. But when a public dispute reaches the point where bad blood is being created throughout the country, where millions are in destitution, whereby a spirit of abandonment and revolution is being kept alive, then I do not really know what clergymen are for, if that be not a proper case for them to step in to use their conciliatory and pacific influence. But whether they ought or ought not to have stepped in, the fact is that they have. The fact is that the miners, who have resisted, amid gibes and sneers, for about 13 weeks, will resist until physical strength fails them, when they know that, at all events, they have behind them the moral sanction of a great body of ecclesiastics, in thinking that their case is at all justifiable. They will win the public sympathy on the same account.
I mention these things to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. It may need moral courage on his part, but statesmen who go down to history are those who show moral courage. All of us in our youth have read that great speech of Burke on Conciliation, which required great moral courage at the time, and of all the speeches that great orator delivered none will live as long as that, for that reason. And so I say it is a great opportunity for the Prime Minister now to say, "I bow to such a strong and emphatically expressed opinion coming from such a source. I bow to it doubly, because it comes at a time when I have practically to admit that my own scheme has failed. Therefore, not thinking of self-glorification, but thinking only of the good of the country, I am prepared to retrace my steps." The Wallsend Election told a tale. It showed the
strength of the popular breeze. It is true my own party lost their £150, but the party opposite lost 6,000 or 7,000 votes. Wallsend has said, with reference to coal, exactly what Mitcham said three years ago with reference to housing, and, if the Government are wise, they will take the warning in this case as they took it in the other. They retraced their steps with reference to housing, with the result that that very excellent Minister, the Minister of Health, is now able to say that houses are going up all round. So with coal, they would be very wise if they were to retrace their steps, even at the eleventh hour. The terms of the Bishops, putting it shortly, are to refer the matter back to those gentlemen who made the recommendations, and to say to them, "You know what was in your mind. Work it out in detail, and while you are doing it, the mines shall be opened by reason of a subsidy or some form of assistance being given, and if, at the end of four months, everything is not settled, then the miners are prepared to go to arbitration." That is the position.
The Prime Minister said to-day, "I have always been in favour of arbitration. I am in favour of it now. I would agree to that portion of the clergymen's circular, except that it is tied to a subsidy." The right hon. Gentleman is not present to hear me, but, if he were, I would like him to answer these questions. Is the reason that he will not accede to the arbitration point, because it is tied to a subsidy, a reason based upon principle? If it be a reason based upon principle, how does it lie in his mouth, when, contrary to the hopes of a few like myself, he introduced the subsidy last year, and how very unwisely it comes from his mouth to say to the miners throughout the country, "I was willing to accept the principle of a subsidy, and to mulct the community to the tune of over £20,000,000, when I wanted that money to mobilise my forces in order to beat the miners. I had no scruples about it then. But when I am asked for money to help the miners, then I hold up my hands in holy horror." It is a very unwise position to take up. On the 1st June the Prime Minister said:
It is obvious that whatever settlement is arrived at, sooner or later—and I hope it may be sooner—some assistance may be needed. Here I am going dead against the
Report, which hon. Members are sometimes so fond of quoting across the Floor of the House, when I say that it will probably be necessary to render some assistance, and we shall be prepared to do it…. I have never hesitated, when adopting to the full the recommendations of the Report, to maintain the view on this point alone, while I agree emphatically that it is impossible to continue the existence of the industry by continued subsidy, that a temporary subsidy in some form or another will be needed, whether it be to aid the period while negotiations are proceeding, or whether it be to aid certain districts…. I believe some assistance will be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1926; Vol. 196, col. 673.]
On principle, to what does the Prime Minister object? Is it to go forth to those men whom we are trying to conciliate, "When the Report recommends things which you like, it is waste paper, but when it recommends things which the owners like, it is sacrosanct. When it recommends no extension of hours, tear it up. When it recommends that there should be no further subsidy, and it suits the owners, it should be accepted. We must obey them." Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he said to-day, "I am not prepared to give a subsidy or any assistance for so long a period as four months"? Do I understand that to mean that it is not principle which is holding him back, but that the financial situation to-day is very different from what it was a couple of months ago, and therefore he cannot do it?
If that be the position, I want to put two points. The first is, if the principle of the subsidy goes, and if, as a matter of finance, it is shown—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runchiman) has shown, and no one has questioned it—that the whole of this subsidy or assistance which is asked for to bridge over the period when arbitration would settle everything—the whole of that period, in keeping the mines going on exactly the same basis as the subsidy kept them going before the 1st May—would not involve as much expense as one further week of strike, how can the Prime Minister be genuine, and expect to be believed, when he says: "My real objection to arbitration is that it is tied to a subsidy, and my real objection to the subsidy is that we cannot now afford it"? What does he mean? Think of a man saying, "I cannot afford £1,000 to save me a loss of £10,000."
That is the same thing. If he cannot afford it for four months, can he afford it for one month. Will he say that? Will he agree to any temporary assistance at all for the purpose of carrying out the suggestion of these bishops? If he is prepared to do so, I have no doubt he will be able to get the men to agree. There is nothing sacred about four months. All that is wanted and asked for is that a breathing-time be given, to ascertain in two, three or four months during which the Commission are telling us what they really had in their mind when making the recommendations, and in trying to bring the men together. If at the end of that period they are not brought together, can the men do fairer and say, "As far as we are concerned, appoint an independent tribunal, and we agree to accept its judgment"?
7.0 P.M.
I do hope somebody will convey to the Prime Minister the views, however humble, of Members like myself. I represent a very strong element of the mining community up in Durham, and I know a good deal of the conditions in Northumberland. The men there are miners of the class who live on the export trade, and who now cannot be sent back into the pits without some form of reduction in wages. These men are asked at the present time not merely to do what the Commission said, namely, to suffer a cut of 10 per cent. while reorganisation is going on, but to suffer a cut of 10 per cent. as well as to work an additional hour, and now the manager caps that by posting notices at the pits saying to the men: "You know before the stoppage you were working under a special agreement which gave you 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. more, on the average, in wages than the other districts in Durham were getting. That arrangement was made to suit me, the manager. I now tell you that before I apply the eight hours, and a further drop of 10 per cent., you must agree to give up that 25 per cent. which you enjoyed before the stoppage took place."
Can you expect men with blood in their bodies, and with any'sense of indignation or anger, to put up with a thing like that? That class of men is incensed by such a petty, mean trick as that, but they are still willing, if it be honestly put before them, to say, "Reopen the pits
with some Government assistance for this period of four months, and during the interval let the Coal Commission work out what they think will put the industry on its legs, and then at the end of four months, if it is not settled, let it go to the arbitrator, and, if he says we are to suffer this 10 per cent. and the 25 per cent. and the eight hours, or whatever the decision, we will abide by it." [HON. MEMBERS: Not eight hours!"] Hon. Members are quite right. There should only be a reduction of wages. Perhaps the Committee does not appreciate how it is that these men feel so keenly with reference to hours. There has been a struggle for the shortening of hours going on for generations. Commission after Commission has reported, and it was won in 1919, and even then, in the very Act of Parliament establishing the seven-hours day, so strong was the feeling that there was a section—a most unusual thing in an Act of Parliament—saying that when economic conditions justified it, the seven hours was to be reduced to six. The men say, "Here is this reduced period of straining our backs, which we have won after endless strife, and if we are to go back now to the longer period, it is gone for ever." There is a positive difference, and they know it, between a reduced wage and lengthened hours. If you reduce the wage, economic conditions will soon settle it, and foreign countries cannot cut wages unless economic conditions allow them. But with reference to the hours, that is a matter of political, Parliamentary and legislative action. If you lengthen these hours, then Belgium and America will follow, and all you will have done is, not to benefit your own community, but to lower the conditions and standard of existence. Therefore, they will not have this hour. I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but I trust that some advantage will be taken of the action of the Churches to try and bring about a settlement.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am sure every member of the Committee will have listened with great interest to the grave considerations which were put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). There is no question at all as to the terrible effect which the coal strike is having on
the country. Everybody who is connected with any form of industry knows how trade is paralysed, how commerce of any kind is becoming very difficult, and that the uncertainties which are created are daily having the effect of sending many orders, which otherwise would have been placed in our own shops, to other countries.
I think it is impossible for us to contemplate what is happening in this country at the present time without making up our minds that some method must be found by which these deplorable disputes may be settled, and disaster to the nation prevented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), the other day, gave a lurid account of the losses which were being suffered by this country every week through this coal stoppage. I think he erred on the side of minimising rather than exaggerating the amount, because from the experience which I myself had in the course of the last strike in 1921, my belief then was that the losses suffered were much greater than the figures which my right hon. Friend gave to the House last week.
Suppose we take a glance back over the series of years since the War. I find it stated in books of statistics that this country has lost during that short period something like 195,000,000 working days, by stoppages in industry, and that the losses caused up to the end of last year, not including those which we are suffering this year, have to be computed at no less than £1,000,000,000. That figure is not a very exaggerated one when we remember the total losses in 1921, and all the additions, caused by other stoppages, that have to be made to that figure. That is a computation which skilled people in these matters have made. The House should realise that it is a figure which exceeds the amount of our debt to America.
I should therefore like to reinforce the suggestion that we must in the immediate future find some method of avoiding these devastating and appalling losses arising out of the troubles in industry, which, one would suppose, we being children of one family, we would desire to settle in the way least injurious to the family as a whole.
One of the interesting parts of this Debate, along with some other Debates which have preceded it, is the new found adhesion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the company of bishops. The account which he gave this afternoon of their acumen and their practical capacity was certainly not very flattering, but nevertheless they have seemed on certain recent occasions to have become his bell wethers. On every occasion they have led him astray. They took him down the wrong turning when the general strike began, and they have deflected his proper course on the present occasion.
I am sure there must have occurred to many minds an episode in history which I know my right hon. Friend very well remembers. It was the occasion when Cromwell was invading Scotland, and he was confronted by the Scottish Army under the command of a sturdy old soldier, Sir David Leslie, who was occupying with his army a very formidable position, so formidable that Cromwell thought it was impossible to dislodge him, so he halted. Shortly afterwards, to his great surprise and relief, he saw this army descending into the valley, where he was very easily able to defeat them and break them into a rabble. The explanation was that the clergymen who accompanied the Scottish Army had urged this manœuvre, and, in spite of all Sir David Leslie's protestations, in the condition of the Scottish Army at that time—which was more like a public assembly than a disciplined force—the clergymen succeeded in having their views adopted. The result of that unhappy battle has never been forgotten in Scotland, and the Scottish clergy seem to have learned a lesson and got a warning from it which do not seem in any respect to have yet percolated into the country south of the Tweed.
After all, to the ordinary layman there appears a very wide scope for the clergy of this country in connection with industrial disputes, within their proper sphere, to inculcate a spirit of peace and harmony and to attract to their churches, which unhappily they are not doing now, the masses of the people to listen to doctrines which would serve the State very much better than their interference in more practical matters.
It seemed to me that a part of my right hon. Friend's speech to-day was addressed to a situation which has passed over. He rather complained, as I understood, that the Government had not taken up some suggestions of Mr. Herbert Smith at an earlier stage in this dispute, and he referred in particular to the speech of Mr. Smith in which he described how he was ready to go through the Report of the Coal Commission page by page, although he did not make it very clear as to the conclusion he would come to at the end of it. There is a phase that period which I am afraid my right hon. Friend has forgotten regarding the dealings of the miners with the Trade Unions Committee. The hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has given a revelation of what took place within that body. Several days after that speech by Mr. Herbert Smith the Trade Unions Committee came to the conclusion that the miners would not depart from the slogan which they had given forth to the world, and the Trade Unions Committee found the situation so obdurate and the attitude of Mr. Herbert Smith and his Committee so intractable that they entirely gave up the attempt to persuade them to adopt the Report, and in consequence the general strike was called off.
I will not refer to some of the very picturesque language used in the account of these proceedings which speared in the "Locomotive" Journal, but one remembers that the Trade Union Committee not only came to the conclusion that it was a very unwise thing to starve on a slogan and to let 300,000 men go out of work because the highly-paid men in the mining industry were unwilling to forego any of their earnings in order to allow the industry to be carried on through the period of difficulty, but they also made it quite plain that, as far as they were concerned, they believed that the miners should have receded from the obdurate position which they took up and should have been ready to discuss at once the question of wages.
My right hon. Friend has declared in favour of a subsidy being granted at the present time in order to reach a conclusion of these troubles. I recognise the position may now be different, but, like myself, he was very unwilling that a subsidy should be granted at the beginning of August last year. Unfortunately, I have not been able to
change my mind upon the bad principle of granting such subsidies, and I find throughout the country a growing opinion among wage-earners in other industries that no further subsidy should be granted. I read in the newspaper only this morning an interesting document signed by a certain number of co-operators of the West Hartlepool Co-operative Society. They make an illuminating disclosure upon many of the questions which have been agitated in this House for some time. For instance, they tell of their experiences in operating a mine called the Shilbottle Colliery in Northumberland. It produces a very good coal, a household coal which commands a higher price—they put it at 4s. or 5s. a ton more—than ordinary coal, and yet they say they have been conducting this mine for some time at a terrible loss. During the subsidy period the full loss was £22,000. They received £10,000 from the Government, leaving them in the end with a loss of £12,000. Those are startling figures, especially as they enjoy one of the conditions which is supposed to be a panacea for all our ills, that is to say, there is no middleman concerned in the sale of that coal. It goes direct from the colliery to the purchasers. What do these co-operators say with regard to the subsidy?
Many co-operative members are unfortunately out of employment and, like some of us, on the dole. Do the Bishops propose that another subsidy should be imposed upon us as taxpayers to provide a second subsidy for men who work shorter hours and receive higher pay than we do? Is it any wonder that Mr. Cook prefers words, and the invention of weekly slogans, rather than facing the facts?
I am perfectly certain that what is expressed there by these co-operators of West Hartlepool describes the feeling which prevails among the working people of this country.

Mr. DUNCAN: Wallsend!

Sir R. HORNE: Nothing could receive less support from popular opinion than the idea of granting a further subsidy, which is the hinge upon which turn all the proposals put forward by the clergy. Without a subsidy, as I understand it, arbitration is supposed to be impossible, although I do not see why it should be. If arbitration be a good principle to adopt, I do not see why it should not be
adopted now, although a subsidy is not granted.
Let me turn to another subject of complaint. It is said that the Government are not carrying out sufficiently the Report of the Royal Commission. It is perfectly true that the Government gave their adhesion to that Report, but only on the condition that the two other parties concerned were to give equal support to it. There has not been that concurrence of opinion, and accordingly, as I suppose, the Government have taken their own method, as they were entitled to do. What is there sacrosanct about the character of this Report? In my judgment the most valuable thing done by the Commissioners is the compilation of the excellent collection of data about the industry. I decline for my part to let my judgment become a victim of this Report. I do not see why I should be asked to pledge myself to everything that is there said, or to all its proposals. There are certain recommendations to which I am entirely opposed. It is out of the question to say that any of us who do not give adhesion to all parts of this Report are entering into heresy or sinning against the light. One part of it, indeed, I regard as entirely fallacious and as based upon erroneous grounds. I think the Commissioners started the consideration of this question in the wrong way. Instead of considering how this industry could fairly be conducted under present conditions, and making arrangements for alterations of wages in future, according as conditions changed, they seem to have said to themselves, "How must we alter this industry in order that the wage shall be paid which was paid in April?" That is a totally uneconomic and fallacious method of approaching this question, and they have arrived at what I regard as a very impotent conclusion. I am putting it more bluntly than it is put in the Report, but it is one of the main conclusions that the only thing to be done is to cut off pits and to restrict output.
In my view the restriction of output of a commodity in which we are in competition with many of the other nations of the world is the worst possible policy. It can be done with a commodity
like rubber, where we have got what is almost a monopoly, but here we are dealing with a commodity in which we are competing with all the other great countries in the world for export trade. We are compelled by the force of circumstances to bring our prices down to the prices at which competitors sell, which means bringing our costs down to a figure which will enable us to offer the goods at the lowest price. We cannot do that by restricting output. The great thing is to have the utmost possible output in order to be able to spread the costs of working over as large an area as possible. By that means one is enabled not only to sell the goods at a cheaper price but also in a more regular flow. That is what America has proved beyond all doubt, and I should have thought it impossible that any enlightened person, talking about our coal trade, would have adopted that particular fallacy—would have suggested to a great industrial country like this, where coal is vital to our existence, that we should do something to restrict output, thereby undoubtedly raising prices to our own consumers.
What are our industries suffering from to-day? All are suffering from the same malady—that their costs are too high to allow them to compete in foreign markets with other countries' commodities. Are we going to bring down their costs by adding to the price of their coal? One of the reasons why I demur to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon that the permission to work eight hours a day should either be obrogated or cancelled is that I regard the possibility of working eight hours a day as one of the essential means by which we may get such an output as will enable us again to claim some of the more important coal markets of the world, will enable us to sell in competition with our rivals, and will enable us to give a regular and good wage to the miners of this country. I say this with regret, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, he and I were supporters of the seven-hours day when it was initiated in 1919; but the things we were told at that time have proved to be false. We were told it would not make any difference to output; but everyone knows that, even taking the output of the best year since the Seven Hours Act operated, the since the Seven Hours Act began to
operate, the average output per man per annum has decreased by 25 tons; just as when the eight-hours day was inaugurated, there was a similar reduction in the output per man per annum.
My considered belief, after going into all the figures and data, is that this country cannot afford in normal conditions to carry on more than about 50 per cent. of its mines upon a seven-hours day. I do not believe it possible. It is the effective time at the coal face that counts, because it is only there that the output is being got, and the effective time at the coal face, I am assured, though I am not prepared to enter into controversy about this with my hon. Friends opposite, is less than seven hours; it is put by the Commission as 5¾hours. I do not think it is possible to recompense the capital which it is necessary to sink in a mine by an effective day of only 5¾ hours at the coal face.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I say that is largely the fault of the management. Reorganisation would get rid of that.

Sir R. HORNE: I have said on previous occasions what I have to say about reorganisation. In my view no reorganisation can possibly bridge the enormous gap between costs and prices to-day, and so I do not go into that aspect of the matter. But when hon. Members say the owners are responsible for this, let me remind them that the pits of this country cannot be so badly conducted seeing that in the last 60 years output has been multiplied by three times, and has all been sold. This country has a very remarkable record in coal mining as compared with other countries, and it is only in this country that we ever hear any criticism of our mining organisation, or the way in which the mineowners do their part. A remark this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs proved what I am saying. He said Continental countries were finding a difficulty even now in competing with us, and that if we adopted the longer day they would have to make their day still longer. If that be true, it means that our mines are run as efficiently as those on the Continent, and every one who has travelled knows that to be true. Some of the aspersions upon the coal mining industry of this country
have been unjustified and cannot be supported by facts.

Mr. SPENCER: Have you read the article in the "Colliery Guardian" this week?

Sir R. HORNE: I pass from that question to say one final word. There was a reference to research in the speech of the Prime Minister. Criticisms are made in this House from time to time of our lack of enterprise in adopting new methods or going in for more research in order to make better use of the coal we have in the country. I am one of those who are eager to see the best possible use made of coal, so that none of the value in it shall be wasted. It has been my duty to take a particular interest in this matter, if the Committee will forgive me a personal reference, because during the War, when so many oil-tankers were being sunk and the supply of oil became difficult, the Admiralty asked me to go into the question of how to get oil out of coal, and from that time onwards I have been closely in touch with the methods being tried. The House can be assured that Great Britain is not behind any other country in the world in the matter of research on this point. Most countries are exchanging the results of their researches. Great Britain is giving a part of the money which it is devoting to research to the development of a process which at the moment is being developed in Germany, because it can be more easily developed there. But it cannot come to fruition at the very best for a certain number of years. There are other methods which are being considered at the present time both in this country and in America, and it is encouraging to note that both the Americans and the Germans are inquiring very anxiously as to our processes. Many people think that these experiments will give good results at once, and people are led to believe that you only have to adopt such and such a device and everything will be right. But it is a very different thing to get good results in the laboratory and success in practice on the commercial scale, and many things that look to be very fruitful in the laboratory prove to be impossible in actual commercial use. People must not be led astray by thinking that these things are not being gone into. In my belief the coal-masters, are in very close touch with these questions, and I am sure that if any
reasonable proposal is put to them which will result in a profit the coal masters of this country will be only too ready to take it up. I am very glad to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government is making such assiduous efforts in this direction, and that they will continue to do so in the future. So far as the Debate is concerned, and with the criticism that has been made of the Government, while I do not agree with all that they have done, I think that nothing has been left undone to bring this dispute to a close and my vote will therefore be with the Government in the Lobby.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The new development which has occurred since the last Debate took place on this mining question has, undoubtedly, been the intervention of the leaders of the Churches, both of the Anglican Church and of the Free Churches. They have certainly introduced a new atmosphere and new opportunities for settlement which were quite absent before they came on to the field. Therefore, I welcome with all my heart the great work which the Bishops and the Free Church leaders have done in this matter. I have listened this afternoon to attacks upon the Bisohps for their intervention in this dispute, some of them cynical, some of them interesting, and some of them ill-informed. But nobody has suggested, nor could suggest for a moment, that in anything which they have done they have been moved by any desire other than the desire to promote a settlement, to produce a better feeling between the parties, and to see what could be done even now to bring people to reason and to a Christian point of view. I am very much surprised that people should still imagine that modern churchmen still take the view that the function of the Church or of the Free Churches is merely to preach platitudes, or to give a general sentiment without any practical implication, and that they are in the future going to refuse to take an active and useful part in practical social problems of the day.
The right hon. Gentleman who just sat down spoke of some Bishops or some clergy who had misinformed some Scottish soldiers in a battle, and I thought that was an extraordinary revelation of the right hon. Gentleman's mind,
because he does look on this matter as a battle. Throughout his speech to-day, and on many other occasions, I do see essentially what has been referred to before as the class war. The right hon. Gentleman looks upon the coal-masters, as he calls them, and the commercial interest, as a separate interest which has a certain right and a certain point of view quite irrespective of the interests of the people as a whole. But the clergy do not look upon this matter in this way. They do not look upon it as a battle, but as a deplorable tragedy which arises from the want of the application of Christian principles to industry, and the Bishops are not in this matter because they want to side with one party or the other, but because they think that, in all this talk about economic problems and commercial problems, it is really, like so many other problems, a moral problem. Therefore they come forward with suggestions for a settlement of this dispute. Their proposals have not been put forward as final or as definite proposals, but merely as suggestions. As I understand it, they have come to one of the parties in this industry and said, "Will you tell us what will satisfy you?" And I think it is greatly to the credit of the clergy and to the Bishops that the miners who, rightly as I think, thoroughly distrust the coalowners and the Government, think that there is a sufficient amount of common sympathy between themselves and the clergy to make them willing to put their point of view before the clergy, and even to make certain concessions to the clergy which they have absolutely refused to give to the Government or to the coalowners or to anybody else. If there is one class of the community which is able to get the confidence of one of the contestants in this dispute, which neither the other contestant, neither the coalowners nor the Government—because I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that they are really the same parties in this dispute—can command, surely that in itself is a valuable asset to a settlement of this dispute.
We know that the miners have stated to the Bishops and to the leaders of the Free Churches a basis on which a settlement can be reached, which they have declined to discuss with the coalowners or the Government. Does any hon. Member say
that that is a useless thing, a thing to be thrown away? I do not know whether the coalowners are willing to meet the clergy and the Bishops or not. Perhaps their consciences are too bad, and they do not want to be seen in consultation with these accusing gentlemen. But suppose that they were willing to interview the Bishops and the clergy, and to discuss this matter with them. Then you would get both sides stating what accommodation they were willing to agree to. We know that the Government will never settle this matter. Nobody trusts the Government. The miners do not trust the Government, and, as I heard the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) speaking this afternoon, I did not think that the coalowners trusted the Government either. But possibly both sides may trust the Bishops, and therefore I think you may find a sufficient basis on which to begin arbitration. Do hon. Members still suggest that this chance is to be thrown away? It is rather curious to find hon. Members who support the Bishops on purely abstract and academic questions objecting whenever people like the Archbishop of Canterbury or another prelate expresses an opinion of a practical nature upon a great social problem. I remember one hon. Member who, during the general strike, because he did not like something which the Archbishop of Canterbury said, referred to that prelate as an irresponsible body. But the time has come when people will have to make up their minds whether they will say that they will take sides with the hon. Member for Mossley, who preached the purely pagan point of view, or whether they are going to let the Church perform its proper function, which it performed during the centuries and in one case of great dock strike, of laying down Christian principles and of showing how they ought to be applied.
We have also heard an attack on a certain body called the Industrial Christian Fellowship, of the Executive Committtee of which I happen to be a member. That body exists for the purpose of applying Christian principles to industry. That is its sole purpose. It is not a Socialist body. It may be that this application may in certain directions lead to a mitigation of that crude industrialism which some people support. I do not know, but the sole object of the Fellowship,
as the Bishop of Lichfield, who is one of the signatories to this Circular, has said, is to apply Christian principles to industry. Can anybody honourably say that to keep all these mines closed, and to prevent these men working except on conditions which must produce a lower standard of life, is a Christian solution of this problem? Surely, it is necessary for moral reasons that people should have a decent standard of life, whether we call it a subsidy or whether we nationalise the industry, or whatever we do. Surely, we can stand by the declaration of the Archbishops in the Lambeth Report that the first charge on every industry should be a living wage. I did not understand the argument of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) when he said that we must keep the costs down. That I understand means lower wages, because he says there is nothing to be saved on administration. I welcome his speech because I think it is speeches like these which produce the result of the Wallsend election, and I hope that hon. Members on the other side will go on making such speeches until they give us a majority in this House.

Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. and learned Member will remember the line of my argument. It was that a greater output would lessen the cost per unit of the output and that therefore there would be more to divide in the industry. But that did not mean lower wages. On the contrary, I said it would mean higher wages.

Sir H. SLESSER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no real saving to be got by way of administration, that the coalmasters were thoroughly efficient, and that the Report as a whole was worth very little.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I said there was much less in reconstruction than people supposed, and I gave figures during another Debate. I really cannot repeat myself every time, but I did not say that nothing could be done in the way of greater efficiency or of reconstruction.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman certainly produced the impression on my mind that a substantial saving in the cost of production could only be produced by men working longer hours
or accepting lower wages, and that any saving produced by mere reorganisation was certainly scarcely worth discussing.

Sir R. HORNE: I really think that this persistent misinterpretation and misrepresentation is going much too far. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to remember exactly what I said upon this point. I did not at all suggest that decreases must take place in wages, but what I did say was that the increased output which you could get by increased hours would certainly make your costs less, would enable you to get your markets and to sell at prices at which you could compete with your competitors, and at the same time produce higher wages.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman certainly gave the impression that there was comparatively little to be said for any reduction in costs or any changes in administration.

Sir R. HORNE: The phrase I used was that there was not enough in it to bridge the enormous gap between costs and the prices, and I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to misrepresent me.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman makes the facts clearer and clearer as he goes on. The enormous gap could not be bridged by mere alterations in administration. Therefore the enormous gap has to be bridged in some other way. There are two other ways, as I understand it—partly by increasing hours, and partly by reducing wages.

Sir R. HORNE: By increasing output.

Sir H. SLESSER: I really think that the matter is now made abundantly clear. Wherever the burden of bridging this gap has to fall, it has to fall on the workman and not on the coalowner. We know the attitude the coalowners have taken up by their notices at the collieries, and it is idle to suggest that they look for any other solution of this difficulty except that of lowering the standard of life of the workers, because they are lowered just as much if their hours are increased as if their wages are decreased. That is the way you are going to bridge the gap, and against that proposal the Bishops are working. The Bishops have been brought in because they feel that a settlement by starvation
or privation would be an immoral or unchristian way of dealing with the situation. They have come in not for praise, but because their consciences feel that there ought to be some other settlement. It is not for nothing that all these contributions have been made to the miners' funds by other trade unions or that there is a growing feeling against the Government day by day.
From a political point of view there is nothing our party would like better than to see this stoppage go on. None the less we wish to see it concluded, because we think the conditions are immoral, the hardships unbearable and the injury to industry very severe. Not a day passes without the Government by abstaining from bringing about a settlement is allowing starvation and want to continue causing thousands of their supporters to transfer their allegiance to the Labour party. Therefore, from the merely political point of view we have everything to gain by the stoppage continuing, but there is a moral point of view. The bishops and the leaders of the Free Churches are trying to see whether even now the authorities cannot come to some understanding and find a settlement. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, the Church is going to intervene more and more in these matters than it has done in the past. The intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the general strike and the intervention of the bishops in this strike are the beginning of the reversion to a saner and more logical position in which the Church will interest itself in social problems. We think that mere commercial morality and individualism is powerless to deal with this satuation, and when this dispute is over there will be other disputes for commerce has ceased to have any moral basis and it is to prevent the country being ruined that the bishops are stepping in to recall people to a proper sense of their moral obligations.

Major KINDERSLEY: If anything was needed to justify my intervention in this dispute it is that while the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken and myself are loyal members of the Church of England we totally and entirely disagree in regard to this question. Before I come to the Bishop's recom-
mendations I should like to allude to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). That speech reminded me very much of those people who try to prove a particular doctrine, generally a heresy, by quoting certain passages from Scripture just to support what they wish to prove quite regardless of the context, picking out passages here and there. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done, because he has picked out passages here and there from the speeches of the Prime Minister and pieced them together quite regardless of the context, and in that way he has tried to prove that the Prime Minister must be in favour of the recommendations of the Bishops. That is hardly a fair method of controversy, and the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the situation to-day is very different from what it was three months ago when this dispute started. We have been told by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) that the Bishops are so shocked with the present dispute, as we all must be shocked, that they want to see what he calls a moral settlement, and here I will quote a passage from their own statement:
In view of the injury to the spiritual, not less than the economic, life of the community which must be caused by a continuance of the present dispute, and of the general anxiety that it may be terminated at the earliest possible moment on terms compatible with social justice and honourable to all concerned.
What is the proposal? It really amounts to this, that there is to be another Commission set up consisting of the Commissioners who issued the last Report, that the parties are to appear before them, that, in default of agreement, the Chairman is to act as arbitrator, and that meanwhile for a period of four months, a subsidy is to be paid which will enable the same wages to be paid throughout the industry as on 30th April. That is said to be a settlement in accordance with the principles of social justice. That is not my idea of social justice when you are asking men who are already working longer hours and getting worse wages than the miners to pay this subsidy, when they have already paid over £20,000,000, in order that the miners may receive the wages which they were receiving on the 30th of
April last. That is not social justice but injustice, and it shows how blind people become when they take sides on a matter of this kind without properly considering the implications of all they suggest.
Further on, having put it first of all on this high moral ground they allow to creep in the economic demon which they so much desire to cast out, and they say that on economic grounds it is more economical to pay the subsidy they ask because it is costing the country considerably more to continue the stoppage. I want to know are they proceeding merely on moral grounds or on merely economic grounds, because they cannot proceed on both. It is quite another thing to appeal to economic principles, and I think they might have a certain amount of respect for those people who do not think they can ride two horses at the same time. On this whole question of the intervention of the churches in these matters, they have already intervened twice during the present national crisis. Of course the whole of this question is one of subsidy, and if the Government had continued the subsidy there would have been no coal strike and no general strike, but the Government and a majority of this House decided that the subsidy should not be continued.
As a result of that the general strike came about and then came the first intervention of the Church through the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he made suggestions which practically meant that this House should yield to force what it had refused to yield to reason. I consider that that is a most dangerous course for the Church as a body to take, and in doing that the Church is interfering in political matters which are not their sphere. This House, in coming to that decision, was acting within its proper sphere, and what was suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury was that this House should surrender its proper functions. As a matter of fact the Archbishop of Canterbury is not concerned in the particular group who are putting forward the present proposals, which is known as the Industrial Christian Fellowship.

Sir H. SLESSER: It is true the Industrial Christian Fellowship are interested but it is quite incorrect to say that they are solely responsible for this intervention.

Major KINDERSLEY: I think it will be admitted that that body inspired it and played a considerable part in it. I find that on 4th January last they issued a manifesto signed, amongst others, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell), Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Ben Tillett, and Mr. A. J. Cook, and this manifesto ended as follows:
In attaching our names to this manifesto we proclaim our belief in the Gospel of Christ as the final truth concerning the relations of men one with another.
I am sorry the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is not here, because he issues a paper in which he preaches class hatred of the most bitter kind.

Dr. SALTER: That is deliberately untrue; you know it, and ought to withdraw it.

Major KINDERSLEY: I shall not withdraw it. I do not think I do the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean any injustice when I say that I believe he is a member of the Communist party.

Mr. PURCELL: I am not.

8.0 P.M.

Major KINDERSLEY: Then I withdraw my statement. At any rate, his sympathies rather lean towards what we call the extreme left. I think that one may look with a certain amount of suspicion upon an organisation which issues a manifesto signed by, amongst others, the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. Anyway, they would appear to take one particular side in politics, for the names have a distinctly Socialist tinge, to put it no higher. Therefore, I think the Bishops made a very great mistake in allying themselves with what appears to me to be little more than a political organisation, and it is not to be wondered at that the views they have put forward happen to coincide so entirely with the views of the party opposite in this matter. As I said before, I deprecate the Church as a body, or even so-called representative churchmen, coming into this dispute, because I am perfectly certain that they will land themselves eventually, if they have not
already done so, in very great difficulties. At the end of their statement published in the "Times" I find these words:
It is our considered judgment that the substance of the proposals set out above, although not approved by the Government, holds the field. The standing conference, on whose behalf they were submitted, will continue in existence and will leave no stone unturned to secure the resumption of negotiations for the establishment of a just and lasting peace.
It is rather a serious thing, when the Government, acting, as I have said, within their proper sphere, have decided that a certain course of action, namely, to give a subsidy to the coal industry, is inadvisable, and have decided not to follow that course, that the Church whose function is not that of deciding these matters, should come forward and say it considers that the Government are wrong. This may raise in the future a very serious constitutional issue. The Church must remember that it has many members who are of varying shades of political belief, and who hold various economic views, and it has no right to commit its members on matters of this kind, which, as I maintain, are entirely outside its sphere. In doing so, it is doing harm to itself, and am perfectly certain that it is not furthering the cause which it and we have at heart.

Major OWEN: I do not propose to say anything with regard to the main subject of the Debate to-day, but I rise to draw attention to a matter which affects my constituency in particular, and I am glad to observe that the Secretary for Mines is in his place. Last week, two fatal accidents occurred in the course of the making of a tunnel between two lakes in Carnarvonshire, where a high explosive, namely, gelignite, was used. One of the charges failed to explode, and attempts were made afterwards to explode it, but, unfortunately, two lives were lost. The coroner's verdict was that it was an accident. I am not for a moment suggesting that it was not an accident, but it is the third of its kind that has occurred in that very place this year, and I appeal to the Secretary for Mines, if there are Regulations already in existence with regard to the use of this explosive and explosives of a similar character, to see that those Regulations are strictly enforced, and, if they do not exist, to take steps to introduce such Regulations, so that the lives of those
engaged in this kind of work may be safeguarded. I am particularly anxious that this should be done because accidents of a similar character are occurring too frequently in the quarries in my county, and it seems to me that there must be, either lack of Regulations with regard to this matter, or insufficient inspection to see that the Regulations are properly carried out. All that I want from the right hon. Gentleman is an assurance that he will see that such accidents occur less frequently, and that the Regulations, if they exist, are strictly enforced, and that, if they do not exist, they are introduced and put into operation immediately.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Like, probably, millions of people in this country, I hail looked forward to hearing something in the speech of the Prime Minister that would be of advantage to the mining industry, and would have appeased the anxiety of millions who are anxious to see a settlement of the present dispute; but I must confess that, of all the speeches I have heard from the Prime Minister during the past year or two, the one to which we have listened to-day was, perhaps, the emptiest. If one were to attempt to sum up the Prime Minister's speech in one brief sentence, I think one might say that, if the Prime Minister had simply told the House that he intended to do nothing at all, the rest of his speech could have been dispensed with, for that really is exactly what it amounted to. The responsibility of the Prime Minister cannot be minimized, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say from the Government Bench, and I think it is fair to assume that, whether we take Hammersmith, or Wallsend, or many of the municipal expressions that have been given recently, we are bound to conclude that the nation is by no means satisfied with the attitude of the Government for several weeks past. Some three weeks ago I sought a reply from the Prime Minister to one or two specific questions. I wanted to know how long it had been since the Prime Minister called a conference between the mineowners and the mineworkers' representatives, and I wanted to know if the Prime Minister would tell the House when the mineowners had really accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In neither case,
nowever, could we secure a definite and specific answer from the right hon. Gentleman. He knew, of course, that from the moment when the general strike was withdrawn the only thing that he did by way of endeavour to provide a solution of this problem was merely to send a memorandum to the Coalowners' Association, and a similar memorandum to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. That, I believe, was on the 14th May, since which date the Prime Minister—who, after all, stands at the head of the State, and should be safeguarding the interests of its 45 or 46 million people—has done practically nothing towards endeavouring to find a solution of this great problem, and I think my observation at Question Time to-day was strictly in order when I suggested that the Government appeared to have completely abdicated their function as a Government, and I do not think it was an unfair suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman that it was high time he and his Government contemplated resignation, so that a Government could take their place which would govern in the interests of the whole nation.
This dispute has been current for almost 13 weeks. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, with the Secretary for Mines as a very good ally, have lectured the House, and the miners through the House, upon not having accepted the Royal Commission's recommendations, but in no single instance that I can recall has the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour or the Secretary for Mines made any statement with regard to the coalowners having accepted fully and frankly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I recall the meetings between the Prime Minister, the Miners' Federation officials and the mineowners' officials on the 24th March, where, during two meetings, the miners' representatives sought to secure from the Government a detailed statement of their reorganisation proposals. The coalowners' representatives sat almost dumb through the whole of those two meetings, and, even had we not had the example of the indifference of the coalowners from 1919 to 1926 to guide us, we should have been obliged to be suspicious of the attitude of the coalowners during those meetings, for we were satisfied that, so far as they were concerned, they never intended to
accept fully and frankly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Therefore, it seems to me to be totally out of place for the Prime Minister to repeat, as he has done to-day, what the mine-workers have not done, while all the time omitting to state what he knows the coalowners never intended to do from the outset.
Just to review the position of the coalowners will, perhaps, not be out of place, although I recognise that it is merely repeating what has been said on the Floor of the House several times previously. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) said this afternoon that the coalowners had always accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am sorry the hon. Member is not in his place at the moment. So far as we know, the first definite statement—apart from the vague reply that the coalowners made some time during April—the first tangible set of terms that the coalowners sent to the miners' representatives through the Prime Minister was on the 30th April. They not only did not accept the Royal Commission's recommendations, but they laid down two proposals, namely, an eight-hour day and a reduction in wages of 13⅓ per cent. all round, before they were prepared to open the pits. The next thing they did was on the 21st May, when, in reply to the Memorandum I referred to a moment ago from the Prime Minister, they varied their terms very slightly. They said on that occasion that their terms for the reopening of the pits were an eight-hour day and a reduction in wages which may mean 10 per cent. or less. So that there again they were not willing to accept the recommendations of the Commission.
That is the point from which the mine workers have to draw their conclusions. From that moment henceforth the Government have done absolutely nothing in drawing the two sides to the dispute together. One thing they have done however which compels every one on these benches and the 1,200,000 mine workers outside to believe that the Government have been the allies of the coalowners. The coalowners sought an Eight Hours Act from the commencement. They refused to do anything reasonable during the whole of the period, and fiNaily the Government came to their aid by passing
the Eight Hours Act. That, we claim, was not only putting off a possible settlement, but was handing over to the coalowners such bargaining power as could not be obtained in any other direction, and knowing the power of resistance of the miners, knowing that their day to day practical knowledge in the pits has taught them that the eight hours day is unnecessary, they can only conclude that this action on the part of the Government was to help the coalowners to starve the mineworkers into submission or into accepting their terms. We felt at all events that, whether our suspicions were correct or not, when the Bishops' proposals were forthcoming they provided an opportunity for the Government to retrace their steps and at least take some action which would bring hope to the hearts of the millions of women and children who are dependent on the industry.
The Prime Minister, however, has informed us that he intends to do absolutely nothing. He says: "If the coalowners' and the mine workers' representatives feel disposed to come together and secure a settlement, they can do so, but if they do not, we are going to do nothing, even though industrial paralysis becomes so acute that the whole machinery will have stopped." That seems to me not to be carrying out the duties for which any Government is elected. Here you have something over 100,000 shareholders in the pits. They say to over 1,000,000 workpeople: "You can come to work on our terms. Unless you are prepared to accept our terms, the pits will remain closed. What does it matter to us if the nation is deprived of its coal?" We all know that without coal our industrial machinery is bound to slow down. That does not concern the coalowners very much. We know that the profits they have made in the past will enable them, even though the pits were closed for the next 12 months, not to lose a single meal and not to see their children marching to school short of boots. They will continue to live just as well as they did prior to the stoppage, and it matters not to them whether the pits are working or not. It does matter to the nation, and it ought to matter to the Government, as to whether the pits are going to provide the coal that the other dependent industries need.
But they seem to have made up their mind that the coalowner is going to be permitted for as long as he likes to keep the mines closed, and the weapon they have placed in the hands of the coalowners, the Eight Hours Act, is going to be used to starve the mine workers into submission. I do not think there is a ghost of a chance for a considerable time yet of the mine workers going back on an eight-hours day. The Prime Minister tells us the financial position of the nation is such that he cannot contemplate any further subsidy. He suggests that a subsidy is wrong in principle, and even though he felt disposed to provide some financial assistance, the situation at the moment is such that he cannot contemplate it. It is rather peculiar that the principle is bad so far as the coalmines are concerned but when it is a question affecting land and the landed interests, when it is a question of providing a subsidy, for instance, for the production of sugar beet, it is right. Is a subsidy wrong in principle for housing? If it is, we have been wrong now for a considerable number of years. Housing enthusiasts feel that certain individuals may have taken a bigger share of the subsidy than they ought to have been permitted to take, but the fact has emerged that more houses have been built during the past few years than at any previous period. We are not going to argue that a subsidy can be right in principle for an industry in perpetuity, but last year the Government granted a subsidy of an unlimited sum, without laying down any conditions whatever. They said to the coalowners in effect, "Tell us how much you have lost, and we will meet the bill. We are not going to examine your books and we are not going to insist that the coal should be sold at an economic price. We are simply going to meet the deficit when the deficit has been created." So at the end of the period the Government had to find £23,000,000.
They also found that the subsidy had been used in such a manner as to create a worse set of conditions than those that obtained before. Threepence a ton over the whole six months ending July, 1925, had been lost. After they had received £23,000,000 for the next nine months they had so regulated their prices in selling coal, both for export
and to their friends at home, that instead of losing 3d. on every ton they produced, they were actually losing 1s. 11d. That was the real cause of the position we found ourselves in at the end of April, merely because the Government had granted this unlimited sum of money, without conditions, to the coalminers. But whether that was right or wrong, we feel that the method was entirely wrong, while the intention may have been right. But the present situation is totally different. The miners are not to blame for the present position. The Government, in their action during the last nine months, and the coalowners, in the method they used to dispose of the subsidy, are wholly and solely responsible for the economic position of the industry at the conclusion of the subsidy period. Therefore, the miners ought not to be the first to be asked to make sacrifices either in wages or hours because of the mishandling of the position by the coalowners hitherto. If, as has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Trade, approximately £150,000,000 has been lost during the first 12 weeks of this dispute — approximately £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a week—it is not too much for us to ask the Government to come to the assistance of the industry for a short period, laying down definite specific conditions as to how the money shall be used and for what purpose, so that at the end of that period there may be a possibility of a permanent settlement being reached.
On these lines, I think the proposal of the Bishops might very well have been treated with greater respect than has been shown towards them by the Government. We know that the prices for exported coal went down by no less than 3s. a ton, and it did not bring that extra volume of trade that hon. Members constantly tell us will come as the result of reducing prices. They reduced the price of coal to the steel manufacturers by 2s. 10d. a ton. Here we find that the coal industry, the people who produce the raw material, are the only people said to be working on uneconomic lines. The miners are divorced from any sort of control or any voice as to how the coal is to be sold or at what price. In those circumstances they ought not to be charged with occupying an uneconomic position in industry. It is as much the
Government responsibility because of their lack of attention and care during the last nine months as it is the responsibility of the coalowners, that we find ourselves in our present position.
It would be infinitely better finance and better business all round if the Government would provide the small sum which would be required for a period of four months to set the industry on its feet, to reorganise the selling agencies, to sell the coal at a price which would meet all the demands of the producers and others, and at the end of that period, not only would we not have whittled away £20,000,000, but we should have prevented a loss of £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 a week. We should have got 1,000,000 miners back, producing valuable commodities, and other industries as a result would be able to come back into production. The few million pounds that would be required would be infinitesimal compared with the tremendous losses which the nation is now suffering. The Prime Minister said in reply to a question to-day, and this indicates the Government's indifference to the whole business, that if we had not reached a settlement by the time the House adjourned on 5th August, we shall be called back each month until a settlement is reached. Each month the House is to be called back until a settlement is reached. If a sum of £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 stands between a settlement, and if the Prime Minister and the Government fail to produce that sum of money, they are not fit to occupy their high office and they ought to make way for some body of people who can view these industrial problems with greater impartiality and with greater business sense. That would be better for the nation as a whole.
I regret the very cold, icy response which the proposals of the Bishops have received, and I also regret some of the statements that have been made with regard to the nosy-parkers who have been dealing with business that is said to be entirely outside their province. Many of these people who have been interesting themselves in this dispute, are called upon daily to make visits in their various parishes and dioceses, and they see the poverty and the suffering resulting from the stoppage and are better able than many politicians, who think they
know something about industry, to bring to bear a clear, impartial mind on the problem and its difficulties. I hope that this discussion will compel the Prime Minister to give more consideration than appears to have been given to these proposals, and that the nation by an irresistible force will drive him into doing the thing that he ought to do, to bring the two parties together to find a solution of this problem. From the financial point of view, I hope it will be noted that £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 a week may be lost through a continuation of the stoppage, compared with the few million pounds that would be required to give us a new start for what one hopes would be a new era in the mining industry.
If we are driven to go back by sheer starvation either to eight hours or to large reductions of wages, the Secretary for Mines, from his close association with miners, will know that the miners will not go back in a very happy mood. Ill-will will be engendered, the suspicion that the Government have been on the side of the coalowners from beginning to end will be instilled into the minds and hearts of the miners and their families; there will be a desire for revenge, and they will take the first opportunity that presents itelf to make an attack, when they will hope to win, probably with an impartial Government in office, what they have lost while the present partial Government has been in office. From that point of view, in order to prevent ill-will and suspicion, and in order to prevent the repetition of what we are enduring now, I appeal to the Government to give more consideration to the proposals of the bishops, to be more conciliatory than they have been, to recognise that there are two sides to this dispute, and that whatever advances have been made, the men's representatives have made them, and that the coalowners have made no advances. Eight hours from the first has been their policy, and it is their policy now. They have never deviated from that. They have never intended to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is because of the support which has been given to them by the Government, from the first, that they have held firmly to this object. It is because they are assisted by the Government that they are resisting any sympathetic approach that may be made either by the bishops or the
officials of the Miners' Federation. I hope the Government may be driven to treating these proposals with much more sympathy and tolerance than has been the case up to the present time.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I am afraid that in the few remarks that I shall make I shall not receive sympathy, perhaps, from my own Party, and perhaps not even sympathy from hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House. The City of Edinburgh is not a coal mining district, in one sense, but we have great coal mines in the vicinity, and as I happen to live within a few miles of the constituency of the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), I have made it my duty every week-end for the last ten weeks to get into touch, not with blue books—we have all read them—not with bishops or what they say—we have had too much of the bishops in this Debate—but with the miners and to find out what the miners think and what the miners want. I do not presume to speak with any authority, but I have been in the great mining centres of the County of Fife and I have tried to get at the truth. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing that I have found is the wonderfully good feeling. Perhaps I had better put it the other way, and say that I have been struck by the lack of ill-will against the owners. As far as I have come into close contact with the men, I have never known a body of men so fair, so just, so anxious to do the right thing, if the right thing can be found at this moment, as the miners of the great county of Fife and the Lothians. They would do almost anything to have a just settlement. The wives of the miners and all the miners I have spoken to are of the same opinion. The miners do not want any less wages and, if possible, they do not want any longer hours, while the owners want coal at a less cost. Can it be done? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), more nearly than any other speaker, approached the heart of the question, but he did not make any practical suggestion as to how the on costs could be reduced. I put that question to hundreds of miners in West Fife and the Lothians, and they gave me a simple answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) has had this question under his observa-
tion for many years, and whether the miners are right or wrong, I think it is right that the voice of the moderate miner should be heard in this House at this moment. And I presume to give it as I heard it from the miners themselves.
They recognise, no one more fairly and squarely, that there are good and bad parts of a pit, and that the miner who is lucky enough to work in a good part has to subsidise the miner who works in the bad part. There has to be gives and-take. What they say is this, that when the price per ton is settled—it has to be altered from time to time—they should have a chance of getting as much coal as they can if they like to put extraordinary energy into their work. I put it to the miners whether they could get more coal if a set wage per ton was given and they were not always brought back to one dead level wage per day, and they said, Yes. It is not a question of ca' canny. They do a fair day's work, but every man, if he has an incentive to get a few shillings more from day to day, will almost work air life blood out to get it for his wife and family. It is not a question of ca' tanny. I asked a miner friend to put it in black and white so that if necessary I could read his own words to the Committee. This is what he says:
This will happen—an increase of output—if the men are left with a rate that allows of an extra shilling being earned, even though it may entail a sacrifice in energy and strength—and cause them to go home readier for rest than recreation, but when the point is reached where the miner, after exercising all his skill and strength to get that extra shilling, finds the effort hopeless, and the result is a bad wage, or one below the standard, then the incentive, the anxiety, the will to get all he can out of a day's work disappears, with the result we know.
He sums up the question in these words:
This tame day's wage is a drawback where 'hustle' is wanted. The little gamble or speculation, being part of most men's nature, unappealed to, renders a shift or day's work a tedious thing, does not encourage a man to give of his best. What is true of piece work getting coal is true of piece work transporting it; so much per ton will fetch more from face to pit bank if it warrants a good wage to the man than if they were paid day's wages, and often less men will do the work.
The proposition to put before the men is this—it is a proposition which is carried out in all trades as far as I know.
The greater the output the more you can pay the men in wages, and the suggestion of which these men have approved, and which I put before them is this: they would not object to the owners saying to them, "We cannot afford to give you so much for the first 20 tons per week as we can for the second 20 tons, and we cannot give you so much for the second 20 tons as we can for the third 20 tons. You may get 40 tons per week at the present, but we can only give you a certain wage. We will give you 6d. more per ton if you will get another 20 tons, and make it 60 tons per week." Then down would come the on-costs. I put it to a working miner. He told me that he got 28 tons one week. He was paid 2s. 11d. He got 35 tons another week, and it was brought down to 2s. 6d. I asked him how much he could have produced in that week, and he said, "I think I could have got between 55 and 60 tons." If the owners would submit a proposition of this kind to the miners: We will give you a higher price for the last 20 tons you can produce in a week, they would produce the amount of coal wanted in this country, not in eight hours, but in seven hours, and perhaps in less. That is what I have found while talking to the miners in Fife and the Lothians.
What has happened is this. Owing to all the amalgamations which have taken place the owners, who ought to have been in daily touch with the miners, are out of touch with them, and the miners themselves have tied themselves into a knot by saying not a penny off the wages and not a minute on the hours. There the matter begins and ends. The coalowners are out of touch with the miners, and the miners have tied themselves into a knot. What is wanted is this. If the coalowners, who have done great things in developing the coalfields, had the pluck to go straight to the miners at this moment and say, "Now what is the matter; we are in a hole. The whole industry is in a hole. What are you going to do?" If I were a coalowner, I would take my bag and settle at the public house at Kelty or Cowdenbeath until I got to the bottom of the question. I would not make speeches. The position is most extraordinary. For two or three generations the coalowners have paid millions of pounds in wages to the men.
They have built institutes, given bowling greens and built houses. I admit that it has all been in the way of business. I am not trying to make any party capital out of the question. It is to me most extraordinary that the coalowners, having done this, have not the slightest influence at this moment in the coalfields which they have developed.
What is the matter? The coalowners are respected, and greatly respected; there is no illwill. But there is the fact. The women and the men are undoubtedly anxious to get back to work, but the deadlock is continuing and no one seems to be getting any nearer a solution. There are no two men more respected in Scotland than the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown) and the right hon. Member for West Fife. With men of that character, and with men among the coalowners who are respected throughout Scotland, why cannot the two sides get together and look one another in the face? It is a tragedy. It is not pride on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife. He is the last man, I should think, to have a bit of pride in him. Why does he not walk up to some of the big owners and say: "Look here! Someone has to settle this question. I do not want to go behind the back of Mr. Smith or Mr. Cook, who were properly elected, but cannot four or five of us get together and do something?" If they cannot do it, cannot some of the ordinary miners, who have not yet taken a part in politics—unfortunately there is politics in this business—make practical suggestions?
There is a great chance for the Government at this moment, and I say that to the Secretary for Mines. There is great good will and good feeling, even after all that has taken place in the coalfields of Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of it and get a move on and do something, he will earn the gratitude of all concerned. Let him get hold of the right hon. Member for West Fife. If that right hon. Gentleman does not get a move on himself, he will have to lose his job. I do not want to introduce any personal matters into the Debate, but I would say that I made remarks similar to these at a public meeting, and immediately I got letters from all over the coalfield asking me to go and address meetings, one of them from Lochgelly. Fancy an old Tory among the "Bolshies"
of Lochgelly! That shows the good feeling that exists. It exists at this moment. Why should we not try to encourage that good feeling? Do not let any coldness exist on the Conservative Benches. Let us be as warm in sympathy with the miners as possible. By that I mean, let us be deeply anxious to do the right thing at the present time. Let us take advantage of this great opportunity. If we do not take advantage of it greater crises than that through which we are now passing will occur. I appeal to the Secretary for Mines to seize the opportunity and to render one of the greatest services that a Minister can render to the country at the moment.

Mr. G. THORNE: I intervene not so much to introduce any opinions of my own as to elicit from the Secretary for Mines something that will clear up the doubts that are in the minds of most members of this Committee. I want to know where we really are. We are representatives here, and we have to report to our constituencies. Those of us who have mining constituents have to report to them. I want to be in a position, without any misapprehension, when I next meet my mining constituents, to tell them what the actual position is and to what they can look forward. The object of my intervention is to invite the Minister to make a clear and direct statement and to give a precise definition as to where we really are and to what the miners can look forward. Last year the Prime Minister tried, and I believe tried very earnestly, to get the mineowners and miners together. He urged that it was a matter for them to settle for themselves. Whoever was to blame, he failed in his effort. Having failed, he appointed a Royal Commission and granted a colossal subsidy. The Commission has sat and has reported, and now we are neither to have the Report put into operation nor are we to have any subsidy. Notwithstanding that, as far as I understood the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, he goes back to his original proposition and considers it still to be the duty of the mineowners and the miners to meet and agree. If that was impossible last year, how has it been made possible this year, in view of the passing of the Eight Hours Bill? The chances in that direction, instead of being increased,
have been greatly decreased, and the position to-day is worse instead of better.
I should feel that there was an absolute impasse, but for that which, I am sorry to notice, has been derided in many quarters of this House—the intervention of the Bishops and the ministers. I for one hailed that intervention with very great gratitude. I think it was high time that something of the kind was done. It has been fully explained why they have intervened. Now there is a chance given again to the Government to get this matter put on a peaceable basis. I respectfully suggest that in the very interesting speech to which we have just listened we have had perhaps the strongest advocacy that the Government should listen to the Bishops' proposals. It is the one last chance at the present time, apparently, to get the mineowners and the miners together. The Bishops make practical proposals. If those practical proposals are carried out, negotiations will be entered into, all the suggestions of the hon. Member who has just spoken will be taken into consideration, and there will be a chance of getting the mines placed on a better basis. As far as I can learn, while at this juncture it is vital to the welfare of the nation to get this terrible struggle settled, all that stands in the way are a few million pounds, while at the same time we are wasting millions every week to a very much larger extent.
I put it directly to the Secretary of Mines: Do the Government absolutely turn down this last suggestion for securing, through the intervention of the Bishops and ministers, negotiations between the mineowners and the miners to arrive at some direct settlement; and if they turn it down, what do they propose in its place? Are we to understand that they will simply leave the question as it is, during the holidays and during the months that are before us, and that this issue is to be fought out to a finish between the owners and the miners? I meet these poor miners; I have to answer to them as their representative, and there is no man representing miners in Parliament whose heart has not been saddened by what he has seen and heard recently. I want to be able to bring peace to them. I was speaking to them last week, and I was desolate in trying to address them because I knew not what to say. I do
not want to stir up strife; I want to produce peace, but in order to produce peace it is necessary to indicate some practical means to that end. When I meet them again, am I to tell them that the suggestion from the Bishops and ministers has been reasonably and considerately received and that there is some hope; or am I to tell them that it has been turned down absolutely, that there is no other practical proposal to take its place, and that all we have to look for is a fight to a finish? In that case, their hearts will be sad, and my heart will be sad, and what the future will be none of us can tell. This offer gives a chance of peace. Unless that offer is accepted I see no chance of peace. I put it to the Secretary for Mines: What is it to be, peace or war? We have a right to know, and I ask him to tell us.

9.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have listened to this Debate with great interest and considerable disappointment. Scarcely a speech has been made which has carried us any further, and it is especially disappointing that Members of the party opposite should continue to adopt an attitude which is certainly not calculated to bring this dispute to an early close. [HON. MEMBERS: "In what way?"] I will explain. It seems to me it is not fair to suggest that the Government are partial. That statement does not advance matters, and everything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition seemed calculated only to make matters worse. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Prime Minister of making no effort to bring the dispute to an end, whereas the Prime Minister has striven from the beginning to bring the dispute to an end and has done so impartially, acting as trustee of the nation and not as the representative of either miners or mineowners. With what the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) said I have the greatest sympathy. I know there are hundreds of miners in my own constituency who are as anxious as the miners of Fife to get back to work, and many of them realise what must be the end of this dispute if it is carried to extremes. It is rather amazing, and is a reflection upon our common sense, that we here should be fighting over these questions of hours and wages when the miners in other
parts of the world are working longer hours in order to capture our trade. A continuance of this dispute will do nobody any good. It cannot have any effect in the part of the world from which I come except to close the pits, in some cases for ever, and so long as hon. Members opposite look upon this question from a political and not from an economic point of view we shall get no further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot!"] Hon. Members opposite say that this is rot and sheer nonsense and so forth. These are expressions to which I am accustomed and they do not affect me in the least. I know this an economic question, and an economic question only, and the Government's difficulty is to make that fact apparent to the miners' leaders. The leaders of the Miners' Federation have failed miserably—

Mr. BATEY: What about the Prime Minister?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: They have gone over to Europe and have tried to make the miners of Europe play the game which they wished them to play, and they have failed.

Mr. BARKER: What about Russia? We have had a bit from there?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not know if the hon. Member desires to live on Russian help, but, if this is the case, it does not seem to have given the miners of Great Britain much credit in the eyes of the miners of France, Germany and Belgium, If hon. Gentleman opposite would only look upon this matter from a sane point of view they would realise that this strike or lockout, or whatever you term it—in my part of the country we call it a stoppage—must end sooner or later. How are we going to bring it to a speedy end? There is a good deal to be said for the suggestions put forward by the Bishops, but those, suggestions do not bring us much nearer a settlement. Indeed from what the Prime Minister said, it seems to me that they have not carried us any further at all. There is nothing to prove that, supposing the Government were to grant a subvention for the next four months, there would be a settlement at the end of that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] If hon. Members opposite can assure the
Government that they can bring about a settlement at the end of four months—a permanent settlement or at least a settlement for a certain number of years—as a result of the adoption of these suggestions, then it is a matter which might be considered.

Mr. CONNOLLY: That is in the terms.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Can you get the leaders of the Miners' Federation to say that absolutely?

Mr. BARKER: They have said it.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, they have not said it. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) used the expression "may guarantee a settlement." What you have to do is to guarantee that you will carry into effect the Bishops' suggestions; what you have to say on behalf of the Miners' Federation is that their leaders will accept and guarantee a settlement at the end of these four months—that is, if the Government see their way to accept this proposal.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Do they not accept the principle of arbitration on the balance of unsolved questions at the end of four months?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If what the hon. Member suggests is correct, and if the miners' leaders absolutely agree to accept arbitration as a final solution of the problems that remain unsolved, at the end of four months, then it seems to me that something definite is offered, and I am glad persoNaily to have elicited this for my own information. But nevertheless, it is perfectly fair to say that speakers on the opposite side have never definitely said so. I have carefully listened to their speeches, and the hon. Member for Don Valley, who represents the point of view of the Miners' Federation, said they might guarantee a settlement.

Mr. SUTTON: Have not four officials, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, signed a memorandum to that effect?

Mr. BATEY: Will the hon and gallant Member let me read it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I am prepared to believe that those proposals have been made; if so, it is a great step forward. If you can definitely say that, we know where we are, but I specially want to emphasise that no real settlement can be brought about if there is this perpetual atmosphere of suspicion. Suspicion is the curse of the whole of this mining problem. I have met it ever since I went into the mining area; I know that that is the real trouble which makes the whole coal question so difficult to solve. It is this atmosphere of suspicion, always the miners suspecting the owners, and always the owners wondering how they can best make money out of the mines. Let me put it like that. I am sure that if you can carry out the propositions put forward by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh you will get a man to work his best, and he should get paid for his best; if an owner do not cut prices for piecework, his men will do their best, and the industry will prosper. I am certain that in this way only shall we get to the end of our troubles. It is futile for anyone who speaks on this subject to shut his eyes to the fact that, unless we can very soon get our pits going again, the trade and industry of this country must inevitably go from bad to worse. It seems to me that it is time for those who lead the miners to remember that there are other industries that are suffering, and that workers in other industries came to their assistance in this struggle. The time has come when the miners' leaders must be prepared to come forward and really show that they mean to bring the struggle to an end.

Mr. WALSH: They have done so.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If you really are willing to resume negotiations on some such terms as those suggested by the Bishops, it seems to me that those proposals are worthy of consideration.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: From the moment that the Prime Minister of this country violated both the spirit and the letter of the Coal Commission's Report in handing over to the owners the bargaining weapon of the eight-hours day, public opinion in this country has steadily hardened and set itself against the Government. It has been reflected in all the important organs of public opinion, it has been reflected in the recent
Wallsend by-election, and it has been reflected in this very unusual action of the Churches—I do not know how far we should require to go back in history to find a previous example—of the whole of the Churches of this country coming out and making a declaration upon a fundamental matter concerning the economic life of this country. Therefore, from every point of view, there is not a Member in this House, to whatever party he belongs, who does not know, and who did not realise again, as he remembered the things which the Prime Minister did not say as he listened to the very spiritual and moral attitude of the Prime Minister in delivering his speech this afternoon, that the present policy of the Government, in merely handing over weapons to the owners and deliberately neglecting the essential reconstruction of the industry, stands condemned before the whole of this nation in every essential. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are being asked to leave this matter in the hands of the owners and the men. We are being asked, in other words, to go back to the old methods of the 19th century to settle this problem. We are abandoning, in that very act of the Prime Minister, all the essential advice that this nation has had with regard to the mining industry since 1919, because there has never been any responsible advice given to the nation, since the days of the Sankey Commission, which did not say, in the very first place—not in the last place, nor even in the second place—that the only way in which to begin, from the point of view of the mining industry, was to introduce the principle of public co-operation into the industry, and that the only way to begin was to take Government initiative as the primary condition affecting any kind of either temporary or Permanent settlement of the problem.
It has been said, over and over again, that we must go back to the methods of private enterprise to settle this problem. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has been referring in his last three speeches, I think, to the example of America, and he has suggested that we should go back to the American conditions, leave the State out of account, and let the owners and the men fight the problem out for themselves. I suggest that, even if you take the
American example, which, from the mining point of view, does offer the best example of high wages, you will find that we cannot hope, in the American method, to find a solution of our difficulties. Mr. Hoover has spent a great many years as one of the leading advisers of the American nation in regard to industrial problems, and, in analysing the situation over there, he has made it abundantly clear that the real problem in American mines is essentially the wastes that come from badly organised pits. In an analysis of the whole problem there, he has put 75 per cent. of the problem of waste in American industry on the side of bad management. Taking six leading industries in America, the building industry, the boot and shoe trade, the metal trade, the printing industry, the men's clothing trade, and the textile industry, he has found in every case that the wastes due to management average from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. out of 100 per cent., and the wastes due to bad methods on the part of the men represent 9 per cent., 10 per cent., 11 per cent., 12 per cent., or 13 per cent.
When Mr. Hoover came to apply his objective method of analysis to the American mining industry, he pointed out to the American nation, as well as to this nation; that that industry was the worst organised of the whole of the American industries. Those who have been to America, and particularly to the bituminous coalfields, know very well that, while they have got a very high degree of efficiency in respect of cutters and other machines during the last 10 years, and while the men there have got high wage rates, their average week is not more than 2½, days; they know that last year the men in the coalfields were idle for more than a third of the working days; and they know that for the last 30 years, in the bituminous mines of America, the men have never worked more than two-thirds of a working day. Therefore, the whole analysis which comes from the American side makes it quite clear that, even by having an 8-hours day, including the winding time, and high rates of wages, they are not able to solve the problem of an efficient organisation of the mining industry.
It is admitted that they have got 200,000 men too many in that industry,
and it is admitted that they have got several hundred first-class mines which cannot work because they are able to turn out far too much coal, under an unregulated system of private enterprise, so that an American Commission, reporting in 1923, laid it down as a principle that the mining industry was of the nature of a public industry, and until some element of public control was introduced, there was no likelihood of any permanent or satisfactory solution of the mining problem. I venture to suggest, therefore, that any serious analysis of the American conditions must lead to the conclusion that the introduction of the principle of public regulation, and the introduction of the principle of a lesser working day than is being carried out at the present time, at least in the non-union districts of America, where they are working from 8½ to 11 hours a day, are indispensable to any satisfactory approach to the American system of mining at the present time. Therefore, I want to come back to the original point of view, with which the Labour movement has been busy throughout the whole of this dispute. It is no use saying that this is not a political matter, not an affair of the State. It has been fundamentally and essentially an affair of the State ever since 1919. I have no reasonable ground of complaint against the Prime Minister if he merely says that the nationalisation of the mines is a Socialistic proposal, and, therefore, cannot be touched.
But we do feel that we have the gravest grounds of complaint that where you have an eminent Judge in 1919 examining a number of witnesses, and declaring his final judgment, that until you do away with the unregulated system of conducting the mining industry, you cannot begin to touch satisfactorily the problem of either producing or selling the coal, and saying that private enterprise is a wrong against the nation; when he has said in 1919, and again in 1925 and 1926, that this nation cannot hope to take the first step to deal with this problem,, either in terms of wages, in terms of hours or in terms of the widest interest of the community, without working out this primary principle of public co-operation in the mining industry, then, in those circumstances, in the light of all we have gone through in 13 weeks, in the light of the efforts
of Sir Herbert Samuel, in the light of the effort of the Labour movement, and in the light of the organs of public opinion, the churches and chapels of this country through their leading bishops and ministers of religion, to bring back the Prime Minister, not to a Labour policy, not to the interests in which we as a party have engaged for the past 30 years, but to the essential point of view of Sir Herbert Samuel—in these circumstances, we are on perfectly sound ground when we say that the Prime Minister is deliberately acting against the best advice which has been given to this nation ever since 1919. I have been in the last six weeks in my constituency speaking to my own people, one-third of them being miners. They are living in small villages dotted about the hill sides and valleys of York-shire. I had to stand up and talk to these men, and tell them what I thought about the situation. Part of their pride has been that they belong to the leading mining industry in the world, and they, who have fought for 50 or 60 years to raise their conditions inch by inch, are now asked to go below the worst conditions that can be found in Europe. They know that the Germans and the Poles are going to be better off than themselves in respect to hours of labour, and they, who, with their fathers and grandfathers, have laid the foundations of the industrial situation, are now being invited, by the head of the most powerful Conservative Government of modern times, to go back somewhere into the 19th century in respect to conditions.
I was talking to an old miner at one of my meetings, and he said, "I am 74 years of age, and I have been going into the mine ever since I was nine years old"—that is 65 years. He asked, "What have I got for it all?" and answered "Nowt." He said, "Now I have got to go back again when this trouble is over, and they want me to go down for eight hours a day." I say there is something profoundly and deeply disturbing, not simply for the miners, but for the best men and women in this nation in the open and flagrant manner in which the Prime Minister is acting. I want to raise my protest in the same spirit that the Church of England has done in the past week, on economic and moral grounds, and to ask at the beginning of this 13th
week of the struggle, one of two things, either that the Prime Minister will have the economic wisdom and the moral courage to stand by the essential features of the Royal Commission's Report, or hand in his resignation, and let us have a General Election.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Debate to-day, we were told, was to mark one of the stages towards an early solution of the troubles in the coal areas. But I regret to say that, having listened to nearly the whole of it, I do not feel that we are much further forward. That is a matter of very grave concern. The House is on the eve of separating for the August holidays, and we, as Members of Parliament through the House of Commons, will not be able to make any contribution towards the settlement, at any rate, for a month, and it may be longer. We had hoped that this discussion, starting as it did from a new point, would have enabled the Government to make some announcement, or to have shown some alteration in position, or would have told us of a new development in the minds of the mine-owners which would have given us some cause for hope. Up to the present, I regret we have heard nothing that is at all cheerful, and, as we look round the country, we recognise that every economic fact with which we are now faced leads us to the conclusion that this dispute is going to be the most costly through which this country has ever passed. It is not only a matter of the loss in which other industries are involved, but if one may go to the coal trade itself, it means that the longer this dispute continues, the longer we shall be in recovering not only our home but our foreign trade, and much of our foreign trade will, I fear, never be regained.
There is no doubt that every week which passes now brings the agents of the foreign coal exporters to markets which were peculiarly our own, and once they have been established their firms in the markets, and in many cases involved the concerns supplied with the coal in an alteration of their equipment to suit the foreign fuel, they are making an economic alliance which will be gravely to our detriment when we seek to regain our control of those markets. Then, there is very little doubt that disputes such as these, extending as they do for
a considerable time every four or five years, give, I think, a tremendous impetus to the use of other fuel. We are not particularly interested in this country in the production of oil, but we are becoming increasingly large consumers of oil, and, indeed, without that oil fuel in its various forms we should have been in grave difficulties in the last few months. The world is taking to the use of oil with greater and greater rapidity. We are scarcely living in the oil age, but we are, at all events, by interrupting the output of our coal and export of coal, giving an enormous advantage to the rival fuel. Concerns which consume oil are adapting their machinery, furnaces and boilers, or if it is in the form of spirit, their cylinders, and once they have adopted liquid fuel you may be quite sure they are not likely to return rapidly to coal. So that we are actually seeing our foreign markets flitting away from us on two grounds—namely, on commercial grounds and on mechanical grounds.
We have only to look at the industries in this country to see the very large field affected. The textile trade will have very little fuel by the end of next week. There is very little available now. The iron trade is down to such a low level that there are only 10 furnaces in the whole of Great Britain still in blast. The engineering trade is almost entirely at a standstill. The shipbuilding industry also is hampered by lack of fuel. The export of coal by ships, which has been one of the most important sources of mercantile revenue, and which has given us a hold over the carriage of goods in the world which no other natural advantages could have conferred upon us, is now down to such a low ebb that the tide seem to be flowing uphill. Coals are now coming to Newcastle. The fuel which is being used on the Thames now is not North County fuel or from the Midlands, but very poor coal from abroad. [An HON. MEMBER: "And very dear!"] What I am mainly concerned with is that once these new channels are opened you may be quite sure that they will be further and further developed. It is quite true, as an hon. Member says, that it is very deal coal, and the dearness of that coal places a burden on all the other industries of this country which they are very ill-equipped
to bear in these days when profits are very small and markets are only won by small margins.
It is not only a question of trade measured in terms of money and output, but the men who are employed in these industries are being thrown on to the streets by thousands every week, and there will be more and more of them in the near future. The misery and distress that are to be found in the mining industry are almost excelled in some districts which are dependent on coal for the maintenance of their industries. There is a good deal of sympathy being aroused and very rightly aroused—for those who are suffering in the coal areas, and, thank God, the English heart is so warm that, in these times, whatever may be their point, of view in industrial disputes or politics, there are always a good many people who take care that the women and children do not starve. But it so happens that sympathy is not so easily aroused for the industries which are concerned in the dispute only in a secondary degree. Those of us who move about in the industrial areas can see the loss in health, especially among the younger generation. That is far beyond any means of assessment and we shall not be able to repair the harm done during these few weeks for years to come.
In these circumstances, and with such a gloomy tale to tell of the state of England at the present time, is it not natural that we should welcome any efforts, no matter from whom they come, to bring about a settlement? I hear things said to-day in regard to the Bishops which naturally make one smile. I have heard hon. Gentlemen, who in the past have been their best supporters, declaring with a good deal of contempt that the Bishops are not equipped for dealing with practical affairs of everyday life and ought not to plunge into the field of economics. I have the pleasure of knowing a good many of the signatories of the famous document in question, and I can only say that if they know very little about the getting of coal and the selling of coal, they, at all events, may be appealed to on their human side, and that is not to be regarded as a condemnation of them, for this is, after all, a human question. To tell the truth, one of the elements which is most difficult to deal with in the coal trade is the deeply
embedded ill-will which everyone has to face who has had anything whatever to do with coal disputes in the past. Like other hon. Gentlemen in this House, I have had on occasions to act the part of conciliator, and I know nothing more distressing than to find, when one gets the miners and the owners together, that they distrust the statemens made on the opposite side of the table, that they watch each other as though they were not co-operators in a great industry but practically in an economic war. I do not think that ought to be so, but that is the position. They watch each other so carefully that no document passes across the table but it is scrutinised as though there were tricks in it somewhere. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Mines will bear me out when I say that this element of ill-will appears to be the insurmountable obstacle in everyone of these transactions.
I believe in the good faith of the Prime Minister, and I believe that on the whole the country places a good deal of trust in it. But, unfortunately, the position has so developed during the lost few weeks that now the Government are regarded as antagonistic to the mining community. That is a most unfortunate position. I have never liked the idea of Governments interfering in industrial disputes. They very seldom do well. From what I have seen of every intervention by Governments, at the end of it you find the seeds of disagreement and ill-will in the future. The truth is that Governments are not well equipped for settling disputes such as this. No matter what steps they adopt, they are bound to be suspected of being on one side or the other. If they take up a line which appears too friendly to the miners, then there are many—not all—owners who will say, "The Government are truckling to the mob." If they take up a line which appears too friendly to the owners, there are a good many gentlemen who say, "Ah, there are you are, your natural allies." It is the same, no matter what Government it is. If right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench were in office, there would always be one section of the community who would suspect them of having some political motive in everything they did.
The truth is that the mixing up of politics and economics is one of the greatest errors. Let me pursue that. I
have no intention whatever of shirking the statement I have made. Can the House or can anybody point to one single case under any Government where they have attempted to take a hand in settling a dispute, without agreement within the industry itself, where they have been successful? Agreement within the industry is an absolutely essential condition. I should like to know what the position of the cotton trade would be if it were passing through the same ordeal as the coal trade is at present. Everyone knows the cotton trade will tell you, trade unionists as well as mill owners, that they understand the cotton trade and that no politician ever does. That is their view. You go into the shipbuilding yards, and they have succeeded during the most difficult period in dealing with their problems with an amount of agreement and co-operation which has never been excelled. One of the most remarkable facts is that the shipbuilding trade unions—and there is a very large group of very nearly 30—have entered into complete co-operation in the mental side of the shipbuilding industry, a position absent, I regret to say, from the coal industry, to such a degree that there is no man who sits round the table at these conferences on either side who has not a fuller understanding of the point of view of the employés or, if he be an employé or trade unionist, who has not a fuller understanding of the conditions of the trade of the world, than he would have if they never met, and always regarded themselves as being antagonistic, and at the end of it called in the Government to settle their disputes.
We come to a situation in which, not the Government, but an entirely outside body of men, with no economic knowledge, knowing nothing about the commercial difficulties of the coal trade, have succeeded in getting the representatives and leaders of the miners to come into conference with them. That is not a thing to be despised or to be jeered at. It is a very remarkable fact, that some of the most prominent of the younger leaders of religion in this country have succeeded in gaining the confidence of the miners to a degree excelling the confidence now reposed in the Government or the mineowners. They have succeeded in gaining that confidence to such an extent that six points, which may not
be the actual solution, but which may be the basis of a settlement, have been produced which have led to the leaders of the miners abandoning the slogan. The slogan has gone. They have committed themselves definitely to six points, one of which is an entirely new fact in the mining industry, namely, arbitration. That is a very considerable achievement. In the past the miners have often been prepared for conciliation, but never for arbitration. Arbitration has been fought most bitterly in South Wales. Conciliator after conciliator has sat there Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was one of the best conciliators South Wales ever had. He was succeeded by one or two gentlemen who commanded general confidence, but they always acted as conciliators, not as arbitrators. Now, in this document, the leaders of the Miners' Federation, the officials and the executive, have committed themselves to a new fact, arbitration. I am not going to discuss any of the other five points, but I say definitely that such an important new fact is of great importance to the country, and that the best contribution the Government can make now to a settlement of this dispute is to allow those who have secured from the miners' leaders what they themselves failed to secure to take a further hand and see whether they cannot bring the two sides together.
At the end of more than one war we have been quite ready to dispense altogether with the formal diplomats. We would settle a war at a wayside inn if we got the chance, and I am prepared to accept a settlement from whatever quarter it comes, whether it be a cathedral or a Wesleyan chapel or a "pub." The cost to the country is so grave, not only in money but in misery, that we ought to take any chance and encourage every activity which will bring the two parties together and enable us to reach a settlement before the autumn is advanced.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I am sure the House will agree, after listening to the very interesting speeches we have heard, that it is disappointing, though it may be disappointing for different reasons, that no greater result should arise from this Debate. Also, I think the House will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr.
Runciman) said about the misfortune it is that there should be so much suspicion between the two main parties in the mining industry, and that there should be these constant appeals to Government for help. I can fully corroborate what he said about the blighting effect of that terrible atmosphere of suspicion in the mining industry, how hopeless it seems to try to get the parties together, how hopeless it, seems to ask one side to believe what the other side has said, or even to get them to accept the written and signed word of the other party. That is, indeed, a disappointment, and it has been a great factor in all the discussions; and I believe a great deal of what has occurred has been due to the fact that they have not had the courage to try to tackle their difficulties themselves, but have so constantly gone to the Government for assistance, and that Governments have taken far too free a part in trying to bring about settlements.
I should be the last person to scoff in any way at any action taken by Bishops. To begin with, I may claim personal friendship with a certain number of those who have taken the action which is the subject of this Debate, and I respect them. The right hon. Gentleman says it makes him smile to hear some of the things which have been said—I am sorry that I have not heard all of the Debate—by Members on this side with reference to these reverend gentlemen. I am bound to say it also makes some of us smile to realise that at this time of his life—in what I may perhaps, without being offensive say, speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) "in the sere and yellow leaf"—he should be found walking hand-in-hand with some of those whom we have had to defend from his repeated attacks in the past. I think some of those right reverend gentlemen will be seriously alarmed at finding themselves so publicly boomed and loudly praised and being conducted hand-in-hand by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on one side and by the Secretary of the Miners' Federation on the other. If ever there was a case of the lion, the old, fighting Welsh lion, lying down with the lamb, I think it is here. In 1921, as the House has been reminded, there were similar interventions, and on
that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs described it as
an example of interference by a religious organisation in the task of Government which, if followed, would be replete with mischief to both Church and State.
The position is that economic facts will defeat even the best intentions of the Bishops; and though I am sure the House and the country will welcome their well-meaning efforts to try to settle the dispute, it is possible that by encouraging the miners to think—and this is, I am afraid, partly the reason why their intervention has been so welcome on the other side—that by their efforts they can secure again a subsidy, they have possibly done a great deal to prolong the dispute. It is a very curious thing that we should now have so much said about the desire and the readiness of the miners to enter into arbitration if certain conditions are granted. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald) is not now in his place. He said it was unthinkable, monstrous, that the Prime Minister should suggest that his offer that the men should negotiate or arbitrate now should be regarded as an equivalent to the offer contained in the proposal which the Bishops brought to our notice. I would like to know very much why that is. We are told that the miners will be ready to submit to arbitration if for a few months we grant them a subsidy. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) pointed out that it is a very expensive thing to continue this stoppage and that it would be cheaper if we gave a subsidy, but surely it would be much cheaper if they came together to negotiate without a subsidy at all. [Interruption.] I want to press this point. If arbitration or negotiation is really meant, it can start to-morrow; there is nothing to prevent it, and there is no need for this cry that this cannot be done until the country has been bled of many more million pounds. I do not want to use hard words—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rub it in!"]—but I would say that when a gentleman comes and tells you that he will hold you to ransom, that you will be submitted to very heavy expenditure if you do not at once produce money, you certainly do not give him that sum of money, even though it may be more expensive to maintain the more difficult
position with which he is threatening you. You do not give him the money, because you know that if you do he will come again. [Interruption.] I would like to read a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs on this subject. He was speaking then of the situation at that time, and he was referring I believe to the present Leader of the Opposition. He said:
It is a very dangerous thing, and my right hon. Friend himself, because he has got a logical mind, will see what a very perilous thing it is to the nation to say that, because it costs more to defend yourselves, it is better that you should always give way.
A great deal has been said to-night about the position of Mr. Herbert Smith. Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will show them that I am not fighting the miners but that I am doing nothing but trying to help them. A great deal has been said about the attitude which Mr. Herbert Smith, the President of the Miners' Federation, took up about accepting the Commissions' Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon told us that Mr. Herbert Smith had accepted the Report on behalf of the Miners' Federation, and that he had heard him doing it. I have a full report of what happened at the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. Before I read it, I would like to ask, first of all, why the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that on that occasion Mr. Herbert Smith made two speeches. Has he forgotten the second speech? If he has not, why did he not tell the Committee about it? The first speech was:
The Commission had reported, and it was rather difficult to find out what they meant, for different chapters dealt with the same thing in a different way; but he had agreed, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, to take from page 1 to the end of the Report, to go thoroughly into it and accept the evidence.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not now seem to be so ready to cheer that [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition then made a speech at that meeting in which he said that Mr. Herbert Smith had made a statement about the attitude of the miners to the Commission's Report that would satisfy anyone who knew anything about negotiations, and that there was
no obstacle or impediment, so far as the miners were concerned, to resumption of negotiations on the Report. What was the result of this eloquent speech? Mr. Herbert Smith was so impressed by it that he then proceeded to make a second speech.

Mr. MacDONALD: It was the second one I did quote.

Colonel LANE FOX: I am in the recollection of the Committee when I say, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is mistaken in what am speaking about. This was the second speech, in which Mr. Herbert Smith made this explanation:
Somebody was under the impression that he had agreed to accept the full Report. What he had intended to imply was that he was prepared to examine the Report from page 1 to the last page, and stand by the result as fiNaily reached.
[Interruption.] Let right hon. Gentlemen opposite consider what that means. Mr. Herbert Smith was drawing a clear contrast between an impression which somebody had got of what he had said and what he had really meant to say, and there was a great difference between the impression which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon had got and the impression that Mr. Smith himself wished to give. I only want to say that it does seem to me that the leadership of the miners has been on this, as on many previous occasions, quite deplorable. [Interruption.] If you go back to the history of the mining industry, you will find, time and time again, that the miners have had the opportunity of doing a comparatively good deal and have failed by trying to get too much. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never"] In 1919, when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was in office—and here I may say that he is more to blame than anybody else for the suspicion which is holding us up now. I have been told by miners recently,
We have known what it is to be sold by a Government before, and we are not going to be had again.
That referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the Sankey Commission in promising things that he did not carry out. In 1919 the Government offered to carry out the Duckham Scheme contained in the Sankey Commission Report, but it was turned down by
the miners because they wanted to go the whole hog of nationalisation, and that would have included the nationalisation of royalties, pit committees, district unification, and so on, but they did not get any of those things because they would not accept the scheme. In 1921 the Government offered a subsidy of £10,000,000, and the miners refused it at that time, and it was only afterwards that they received a reduced sum and accepted £7,000,000 instead of £10,000,000, and so they lost £3,000,000 by trying to get too much. In 1920 the miners were offered pit committees with the consent of the owners, but they refused, and later on the time came when they wanted to accept the offer, but the owners refused. Now they have had an offer of £3,000,000 subsidy, but the time has passed, and they are not getting it. Surely it is time that the miners profited by the mistakes of the past, and realised that it is better to make terms while you can, and not wait until they are not able to get anything.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken deliberately obstructive action this afternoon, and I never heard a speech which disappointed me more than the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. He has told this House that there is no chance now of our seeing the men negotiating with them. It seems to me like telling them not to negotiate because he could have encouraged them to come forward and not to wait for a subsidy, but he has refused to take that line and he has refused to accept the proposal which was made by the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "What proposal?"] The proposal which the Prime Minister has made is to bring these men together in order to negotiate on all the possibilities of hours and wages, but they have again refused that opportunity and by so doing the right hon. Gentleman has made the strike longer and possibly a more bitter one.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £117,030, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 338.

Division No. 392]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Gosling, Harry
March, S.


Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Morris. R. H.


Barr, J.
GreeNail, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.


Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold


Bondfield, Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Halt, F. (York., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Putts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.


Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Charleton, H. C.
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Clowns, S.
Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Connolly, M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Sexton, James


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, .Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dalton, Hugh
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, T. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lindley, F. W.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Gardner, J. P.
Lunn, William
Sullivan, Joseph


Sutton, J. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Taylor, R. A.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thurtle, Ernest
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Windsor, Walter


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, J. C.
Wright, W.


Townend, A. E.
Westwood, J
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Varley, Frank B.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Harney.


NOES.


Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cooper A. Duff
Hawke, John Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Cope, Major William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, Denr. s (Hertford, Watford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hills, Major John Walter


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Holland, Sir Arthur


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Drewe, C.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bennett, A. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Berry, Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Elveden, Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Eills


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Huntingfield, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Fielden, E. B.
lliffe, Sir Edward M.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brass, Captain W.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. F. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Briscoe, Richard George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jacob, A. E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Frece, Sir Walter de
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lamb, J. Q.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grace, John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Grant, Sir J. A.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Campbell, E. T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cassels, J. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Loder, J. de V.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Looker, Herbert William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A.(Brecon & Rad.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hammersley, S. S.
Macintyre, Ian


Christle, J. A.
Hanbury, C.
McLean, Major A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macmillan, Captain H.


Clayton, G. C.
Harland, A.
Macnaghten, Hon Sir Malcolm


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Cochrane Commander Hon. A. D.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hartington, Marquess of
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-




Makins, Brigadler-General E.
Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Malone, Major P. B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Margesson, Captain D.
Reid, Capt. A. S. (Warrington)
Templeton, W. P.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Reid, D. D. (Country Down)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Mason, Lieut.- Col. Glyn K.
Remer, J. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Meller, R. J.
Remnant, Sir James
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Merriman, F. B.
Rentoul, G. S.
Tinne, J. A.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rice, Sir Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Roberts E. H. G. (Flint)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rye, F. G.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Dr. T.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Murchison, C. K.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Neville, R. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Com. C. (Davon, Torquay)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Oakley, T.
Shepperson, E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, John James


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Penny, Frederick George
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E. (Chest'r.Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Perring, Sir William George
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Col Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Pilcher, G.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wragg, Herbert


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Strickland, Sir Gerald



Preston, William
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Price, Major C. W. M.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord


Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Stanley.


Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

The Chairman then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Services Estimates and of the other outstanding Votes, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Nary, Army, Air and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

CLASS I.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,425,408, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services, viz.:




£


1.
Royal Palaces
71,550


2.
Osborne
11,635


4.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
51,110


5.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
56,720


10A.
Housing Schemes
5


10B.
Mall Approach Improvement
5


11.
Surveys of Great Britain
89,345


12.
Peterhead Harbour
21,000


13.
Rates on Government Property
1,068,748


14.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
55,290




£1,425,408"

CLASS II

"That a sum, not exceeding £8,314,823, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the
Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:




£


1.
House of Lords Offices
27,996


2.
House of Commons
234,561


4.
Home Office
243,976


5.
Foreign Office
108,271


6.
Colonial Office
93,468


7.
Dominion Office
30,559


9.
Privy Council Office
6,658


10.
Board of Trade
311,191


10A.
Australian Zinc Concentrates
225,500


11.
Department of Overseas Trade
228,040


12.
Mercantile Marine Services
237,811


13.
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
5


15.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
759,128


15A.
Beet Sugar, Subsidy Great Britain
2,675,000


16.
Forestry Commission
335,000


17.
Ministry of Transport
71,724


18.
Charity Commission
24,889


19.
Government Chemist
40,785


20.
Civil Service Commission
41,419


21.
Exchequer and Audit Department
101,200


22.
Friendly Societies Registry
30,270


23.
Government Actuary
21,477

£


24.
Board of Control, England (including a Supplementary sum of £2,800
370,617


25.
The Mint
50,000


26.
National Debt Office
11,920


27.
Public Record Office
24,505


28.
Public Works Loan Commission
5


29.
Registrar General's Office, England
56,350


30.
State Management Districts
90


31.
Stationery and Printing
908,344


32.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
18,992


33.
Office of Works and Public Buildings
378,460


34.
Secret Service
100,000


35.
Privy Seal Office
1,620


Scotland.


37.
Board of Agriculture
433,111


38.
Fishery Board
43,294


39.
General Board of Control
48,004


40.
Registrar General's Office
10,043


Ireland.


41.
Northern Ireland Services
10,540




£8,314,823"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 348; Noes, 151.

Division No. 393.]
AYES.
[10.12. p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Daiziel, Sir Davison


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davidson,J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Albery, Irving James
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burman, J. B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dawson, Sir Philip


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Apsley, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dixey, A. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Drewe, C.


Astor, Maj. H n. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cassels, J. D.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholi, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edmonson, Major A. J.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elveden, Viscount


Balniel, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.


Banks Reginald Mitchell
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fermoy, Lord


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Christle, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forrest, W.


Berry, Sir George
Clarry, Reginald George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bethel, A.
Clayton, G. C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colfox, Major Wm. Philips
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cooper, A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cope, Major William
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Couper, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Braithwaite, A. N.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir Park


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Grainsbro)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Salmon, Major I.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandon, Lord


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macintyre, Ian
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Hammersley, S. S.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Hanbury, C.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harland, A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Hartington, Marquess of
Malone, Major P. B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Captain D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Storry-Deans, R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Herbert, S.(York. N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holland, Sir Arthur
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Murchison, C. K.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Templeton, W. P.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Neville, R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Rt Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Tinne, J. A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n)
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hunter-Weston, Lt-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Orinsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Huntingfield, Lord
Pennefather, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurd, Percy A.
Penny, Frederick George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurst, Gerald B.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Perring, Sir William George
Wells, S. R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Plelou, D. P.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jacob, A. E.
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jephcott, A. R.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Preston, William
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Radford, E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Withers, John James


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wolmer, Viscount


Lamb, J. Q.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wormersely, W. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Reld, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rentoul, G. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rice Sir Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wragg, Herbert


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.



Lougher, L.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rye, F. G
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord




Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Margaret
Buchanan, G.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briant, Frank
Cape, Thomas


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Barr, J.
Bromfield, William
Clowes, S.




Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Davison, .I. E. (Smethwick)
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Taylor, R. A.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


GreeNail, T.
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col, D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A. A.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hardie, George D
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James
Wright, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

CLASS III.

"That a sum, not exceeding £6,152,136,be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:




£


1.
Law Charges
132,354


2.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
17,517


3.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
242,450


4.
Land Registry
80,632


5.
Public Trustee
5


6.
County Courts
5


7.
Police, England and Wales
3,414,997


8.
Prisons, England and Wales
477,976


9.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales
130,950


10.
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
49,838

Scotland.




£


11.
Law Charges and Courts Courts of Law
55, 659


12.
Scottish Land Court
6,110


13.
Register House, Edinburgh
50,665


14.
Police
445,000


15.
Prisons
92,107


16.
Reformatory and Industrial Schools
47,457


Ireland.


17.
Supreme Court of judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
32,435


18.
Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
875,979




£6,152,136"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 351; Noes, 145.

Division No. 394.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Apsley, Lord


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Albery, Irving James
Applin, Colonel, R. V. K.
Atholl, Duchess of


Atkinson, C.
Drewe, C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jacob, A. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.


Balniel, Lord
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elveden, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bennett, A. J.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Berry, Sir George
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. O.


Bethel, A.
Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forrest, W.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Looker, Herbert William


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lougher, L.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Gates, Percy
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Brass, Captain W.
Gibbs, Col. At. Hon. George Abraham
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Briscoe, Richard George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brittain, Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grace, John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macintyre, Ian


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan, Captain H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bullock, Captain M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.


Burman, J. B.
Guest, Capt. Rt.Hon F.E.(Bristrol,N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steer-


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Margesson, Captain D.


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Capt. W, D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hammersley, S. S.
Meller, R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Merriman, F. B.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harland, A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hawke, John Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Murchison, C. K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Clarry, Reginald George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Neville, R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir G. K.
Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt, Hon. Sir S. J. G
Nield, Rt Hon. Sir Herbert


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nuttall, Ellis


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Holland, Sir Arthur
Oakley, T.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cope, Major William
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cooper, J. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Owen, Major G.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pennefather, Sir John


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Penny, Frederick George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hudson Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Perring, Sir William George


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Plelou, D. P.


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pilcher, G.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Huntingfield, Lord
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovl')
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Preston, William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford. E. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Ramsden, E.




Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wells, S. R.


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Remnant, Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Rentoul, G. S.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, C. P (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Rye, F. G.
Styles, Captain H Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Withers, John James


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wolmer, Viscount


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Sandon, Lord
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Thomson, Rt. Hon, Sir W. Mitchell-
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tinne, J. A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wragg, Herbert


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shepperson, E. W.
Waddington, R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Skelton, A. N.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Major Hennessy and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves. T.
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbery)


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Heyday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert


Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brlant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Wellhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Duncan, C.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gardner, J. P.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ritson, J.



GreeNail, T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Charles Edwards.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scurr, John



Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,557,782, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


2.
British Museum
183,420


3.
National Gallery
13,713


4.
National Portrait Gallery
5,386


5.
Wallace Collection
8,048


6.
London Museum
2,968


7.
Imperial War Museum
8,685


8.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
105,468


9.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
242,877


10.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales
981,700


Scotland.


12.
National Galleries
5,512


13.
National Library
5




£1,557,782"

CLASS V.

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,286,822, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


1.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
552,525


2.
Colonial Services
254,699


3.
Dominion Services
30,593


4.
Oversea Settlement
625,000


5.
Middle Eastern Services
2,284,000


6.
League of Nations
40,000


7.
West Indian Islands Cable, Grant-in-Aid
5


8.
Empire Marketing
500,000




£4,286,822"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 347; Noes, 150.

CLASS VII.

"That a sum, not exceeding £17,904,074, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


1.
Ministry of Health
10,617,048


3.
Ministry of Labour
7,170,135


4.
National Insurance, Audit Department
110,900


5
Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,991




£17,904,074"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 148.

Division No. 395.]
AYES.
[10.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Agg-Gazdner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dawson, Sir Philip


Apsley, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfriid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Drewe, C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cassels, J. D.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elveden, Viscount


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Chapman, Sir S
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beckett, Sir Gerivase (Leeds, N.)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fermoy, Lord


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Bennett, A. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ford, Sir P. J.


Berry, Sir George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forrest, W.


Bethel, A.
Clarry, Reginald George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Clayton, G. C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ganzonl, Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Braithwaite, A. N.
Cope, Major William
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brass, Captain W.
Couper, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gilyn, Major R. G. C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir Park


Brittain, Sir Harry
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Grant, Sir J. A.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lougher, L.
Salmon, Major I.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grotrian, H. Brent)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandon, Lord


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Savery, S. S.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Macintyre, Ian
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Hammersley, S. S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hanbury, C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shepperson, E. W.


Harland, A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartington, Marques of
Makins. Brigadier-General E.
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Malone, Major P. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hills, Major John Waller
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hilton, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holland, Sir Arthur
Murchison, C. K.
Svkes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Neville, R. J.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Tinne, J. A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Oakley, T.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Waddington, R.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer)
Pennefather, Sir John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Huntingfield, Lord
Penny, Frederick George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perring, Sir William George
Watts, Dr. T.


lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Plelou, D. P.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can'l)
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jacob, A. E.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Power, Sir John Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Preston, William
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Radford, E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ramsden, E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Withers, John James


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wolmer, Viscount


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reld, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Womersley, W J.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Lamb, J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rentoul, G. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Litter, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rice, Sir Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Loder, J. de V.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Looker, Herbert William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Rye, F. G.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Bromley, J


Attlee, Clement Richard
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bondfield, Margaret
Buchanan, G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Barnes, A.
Briant, Frank
Cape, Thomas


Barr, J.
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.




Clowes, S.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Livingstone, A. M.
Taylor, R. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Varley, Frank B.


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


GreeNail, T.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Coine)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rilson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Bondman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John
Wright, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 396.]
AYES.
[10.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Albery, Irving James
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Huntingfield, Lord


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's


Apsley, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Drewe, C.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jacob, A. E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jephcott, A. R.


Balniel, Lord
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Elveden, Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.


Bennett, A. J.
Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Berry, Sir George
Ford, Sir P. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bethel, A.
Forrest, W.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain C. T
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Frece, Sir Walter de
Loder, J. de V.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lord, Walter Greaves


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lougher, L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Braithwaite, A. N.
Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera


Brass, Captain W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Briscoe, Richard George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macintyre, Ian


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macquisten, F. A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grotrian, H. Brent
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Burman, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H
Malone, Major P. B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Marriott, Sill. J. A. R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Campbell, E. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Meller, R. J.


Cassels. J. D.
Hanbury, C.
Merriman, F. B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harland, A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hawke, John Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Hanley)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Murchison, C. K.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Christie, J. A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Neville, R. J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Clayton, G. C.
Herbert. S.(York, N.R., Scar. & wh'by)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Oakley, T.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holland, Sir Arthur
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Cope, Major William
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Couper, J. B.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Perring, Sir William George


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pielou, D. P.




Pilcher, G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Preston, William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watts, Dr. T.


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, S. R.


Ramsden, E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Remnant, Sir James
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Rentoul, G. S.
Storry-Deans, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Withers, John James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wormersely, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Salmon, Major I.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Templeton, W. P.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wragg, Herbert


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sandon, Lord
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Savery, S. S.
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'1, Exchange)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Captain Margesson and Captain


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Bowyer.


Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westh'y)
Waddington, R.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harney, E. A.
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Briant, Frank
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Greenail, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P (Denbigh, Wrexham)




Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Windsor, Walter



Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wright, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £64,071,749, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

£


1.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
800,042


2.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
179,060


3.
Old Age Pensions
18,840,000


4.
Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions
3,000,000


5.
Ministry of Pensions
39,504,900


6.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
262,216


7.
Miscellaneous Expenses
2,716


8.
Royal Commissions, etc.
19,385


9.
National Savings Committee
54,579


10.
Imperial War Graves Commission
708,114


11.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
48,025


12.
Expenses under the Representation of the People Act
175,000


13.
Development Fund
150,000


14.
Government Hospitality Fund
28,000

£


15.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
24,712


16.
British Empire Exhibition Guarantee
275,000




£64,071,749"

EXPORT CREDITS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for guarantees in respect of Exports of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom."

Question put, and agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in Great Britain for assistance in carrying out approved Schemes of useful work to relieve Unemployment."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 341; Noes, 148.

Division No. 397.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gates, Percy


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Goff, Sir Park


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grace, John


Apsley, Lord
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atholl, Duchess of
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atkinson, C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brig-General Sir G. K.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cooper, J. B.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hammersley, S. S.


Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hanbury, C.


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Berry, Sir George
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harland, A.


Bethel, A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Betterton, Henry B
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hemprt'd)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hawke, John Anthony


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brass, Captain W.
Drewe, C.
Hennessy, Major .J. R. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elveden, Viscount
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'1'd., Hexham)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holland, Sir Arthur


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forrest, W.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Campbell, E. T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Cassels, J. D.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Huntingfield, Lord


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Illffe, Sir Edward M.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Neville, R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Jacob, A. E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Oakley, T.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Storry-Deans, R.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pennefather, Sir John
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Penny, Frederick George
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Knox, Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Lamb, J. Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Perring, Sir William George
Seater, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pielou, D. P.
Templeton, W. P.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pilcher, G.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loder, J. de V.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Looker, Herbert William
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Lord, Walter Greaves
Preston, William
Tinne, J. A.


Lougher, L,
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Radford, E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Waddington, R.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Remer, J. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Macintyre, Ian
Remnant, Sir James
Wells, S. R.


McLean, Major A
Rentoul, G. S.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rice, Sir Frederick
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Malone, Major P. B.
Rye, F. G.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marriott, Sir J. A. R
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mason, Lieut.-Col, Glyn K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Withers, John James


Meller, R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Merriman, F. B
Sandon, Lord
Womersley, W. J.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wragg, Herbert


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.



Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Murchison, C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron
Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Connolly, M.
Groves, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Cove, W. G.
Grundy, T. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)


Barnes, A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)


Barr, J.
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Betey, Joseph
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, George D.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harney, E. A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Harris, Percy A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Day, Colonel Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Briant, Frank
Dennison, R.
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, F, A.
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromley, J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, G. H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Cape, Thomas
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Clowes, S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Clues, W. S.
Greenail, T.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)




Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Varley, Frank B.


Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James
Wellhead, Richard C.


Lee, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lindley, F. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Livingstone, A. M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mackinder, W.
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, J. C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Westwood, J.


March, S.
Smillie, Robert
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morris, R. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Oliver, George Harold
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Owen, Major G.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.
Williams T. (York, Don Valley)


Paling, W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sutton, J. E.
Wright, W.


Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Purcell, A. A.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, Ben
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Ritson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph
Charles Edwards.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Townend, A. E.



Question put, and agreed to.

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,611,100 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,075,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Relief arising out of Unemployment."

GRANTS IN RESPECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

"That a sum, not exceeding £800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,

1927, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in England and Wales, in respect of Capital Works approved as Unemployment Schemes."

SHIPPING LIQUIDATION.

"That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses in connection with Shipping Liquidation."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 332; Noes, 144.

Division No. 398.]
AYES.
[11.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Braithwaite, A. N.
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Briscoe, Richard George
Clarry, Reginald George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clayton, G. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Apsley, Lord
Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay. Major H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Brown, Col, D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cope, Major William


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Bullock Captain M.
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cassels, J. D
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bennett, A. J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Maj. Gen. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Drewe, C
Jephcott, A. R.
Remnant, Sir James


Eden, Captain Anthony
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rentoul, G. S.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rice, Sir Frederick


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Elveden, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.
Rye, F. G.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Salmon, Major I.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker. Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Forrest, W.
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Looker, Herbert William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougher, L.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macintyre, Ian
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Cot. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Grotrian, H. Brent
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harking, Captain Douglas H.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Merriman, F. B.
Templeton, W. P.


Hammersley, S. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hanbury, C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harland, A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Tinne, J. A.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harrington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, G. (Larnbeth, Kennington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Waddington, R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hawke, John Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Murchison, C. K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Neville, R. J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Herbert, S.(York,N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hope, Capt A. O.J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Perring, Sir William George
Withers, John James


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Womersley, W. J.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pitcher, G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hume-William sir W Ellis
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Power, Sir John Cecil
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Huntingfield, Lord
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hurd, Percy A.
Preston, William
Wragg, Herbert


Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)
Ramsden, E.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Inskip Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe



Jackson Lieut.-Col, Rt. Hon. F. S.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Jacob. A. E.
Remer, J. R.
Captain Bowyer.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Harris, Percy A.
Smillie, Robert


Bern, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhilby)


Bondfield, Margaret
Heyday, Arthur
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Taylor, R. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Wellhead. Richard C.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Morris, R. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dennisen, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Duncan, C.
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Donnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gardner, J. P.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Purcell. A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenail. T.
Ritson, J.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

RAILWAY (WAR) AGREEMENTS LEQUIDATION.

"That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927. to meet Expenditure arising, from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Section 16."

PRIZE CLAIMS.

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for claims in respect of Ships or Cargoes condemned as Naval Prize or detained and certain Salaries for advisory Duties."

COAL MINING INDUSTRY SUBVENTION.

"That a sum, nor, exceeding £250,005 (including a Supplementary sum of £250,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Subvention in Aid of Wages in the Coal Mining Industry."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–27.

"That a sum not exceeding £7,284,652, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:




£


1.
Customs and Excise
3,120,000


2.
Inland Revenue
4,164,652




£7,284,652"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

"That a sum, not exceeding £36,583,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:




£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
452,900


4.
Fleet Air Arm
681,000


5.
Educational Services
326,800


6.
Scientific Services
435,300


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
445,500


8.
Sec. 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel
7,487,200

£



Sec. 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Materiel
5,480,200



Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work
7,427,200


9.
Naval Armaments
3,436,400


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
971,400


12.
Admiralty Office
1,220,000


13.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers
2,859,600


14.
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
4,510,400


15.
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Allowances, and Gratuities
849,600




£36,583,500

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 340; Noes, 131.

Division No. 399.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Campbell, E. T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fanshawe Commander G. D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fermoy, Lord


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir, Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden, E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forrest, W.


Apsley, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Atholl, Duchess of
Chapman, Sir S.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balniel, Lord
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Christie, J. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzonl, Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gates, Percy


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Glyn Major R. G. C.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower. Sir Robert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Grave, John


Bennett, A. J.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grant, Sir J. A.


Berry, Sir George
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grattar-Doyle, Sir N.


Bethel, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Betterton, Henry B.
Couper, J. B.
Grotton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Dalkelth, Earl of
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.)


Braithwaite, A. N.
Daizlel, Sir Davison
Hammersley, S. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hanbury, C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davidson, Major-General Sir .J. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harland, A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Mai, Gee. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Drewe, C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H .C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hawke, John Anthony


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bullock. Captain M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Burman, J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord (somersetweston-s.-M.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G


Butt, Sir Alfred
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Hilton, Cecil
Merriman, F. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Skelton, A.N.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith- Carington, Neville W.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Herne-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nelson, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Neville, R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Leiut.-Colonel W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hutchinson, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'b'ls)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Oakley, T.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon, F. S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jacob, A. E.
Pennefather, Sir John
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Fredrick H.


Jephcott, A. R.
Penny, Frederick George
Templeton, W. P.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinne, J. A.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pielou, D. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pitcher, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Waddington, R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lister, Cunlifie-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Preston, William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lloyd, Cyril. E. (Dudley)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Ramsden, E.
Watts, Dr. T.


Loder, J. de V.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Locker, Herbert William
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
White, Leiut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Lougher, L.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
William, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Remer, J. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Remnant, Sir James
William, Herbert G. (Reading)


Luce, Mat-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Fredrick
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W,)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Windsor- Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Robert, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macintyre. Ian
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


McLean, Major A
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Withers, John James


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rye, F. G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sanderson, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Malone, Major P. B.
Sandon, Lord
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wragg, Herbert


Margesson, Captain D.
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Shaw, R. G. (York, W. R., Sowerby)



Meller, R. J.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fite, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clowes, S.
Gillett, George M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Gosling, Harry


Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Greenail, T.


Barr, J.
Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bondfield, Margaret
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bewerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Briant, Frank
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)


Bromfield, William
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)


Bromley, J.
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duncan, C.
Hardie, George D


Buchanan, G.
Dunnico, H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hayday, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)




Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Purcell, A. A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, M organ (Caerphilly)
Salter. Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kennedy. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, J. C.


Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Westwood, J.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mackinder, W.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


March S.
Smith, H. B, Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morris, R. H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow}


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell
Wright, W.


Oliver, George Harold
Sullivan, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Owen, Major G.
Sutton, J. E.



Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

"That a sum, not exceeding £21,159,100, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:

£


2.
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
5,392,000


3.
Medical Services
986,000


4.
Educational Establishments
932,000


5.
Quartering and Movements
1,669.000

£


6.
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts
5,912,000


7.
Clothing
1,109,000


8.
General Stores
891,000


9.
Warlike Mid Engineer Technical Stores
2,345,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,044,000


12.
War Office
879,000



Ordnance Factories
100




21,159,100"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 321; Noes, 133.

Division No. 400.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cooper, A. Duff


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M, S.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cope, Major William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cowper, J. B.


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bullock, Captain, M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Daikeith, Earl of


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dalzlel, Sir Davison


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davidson J.(Hertf'd, Kernel Hempst'd)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Campbell, E. T.
Davidson, Major-General sir J. H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cassels, J. D.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bennett, A. J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Berry, Sir George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bethel, A.
Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Betterton, Henry B
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Drewe, C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eden, Captain Anthony


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Charter's, Brigadier-General J.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chlicott, Sir Warden
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Christie, J. A.
Elveden, Viscount


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Braithwaite, A. N.
Clayton, G. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Brass, Captain W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Fierden, E. B.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rye, F. G.


Forrest, W.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Salmon, Major I.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loden, J. de V.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lougher, L.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sandon, Lord


Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Galbraith, .J. F. W.
Luce, Maj.- Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Savery, S. S.


Ganzonl, Sir John.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maclntyre, Ian
Shepperson, E. W.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Grant, Sir .J. A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smithers, Waldron


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maklns, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Malone, Major P. B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, F. B.
Storry-Deans, R.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hammersley. S. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Styles, Captain H. Waiter


Harland, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Templeton, W. P.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Murchison, C. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Headlam, Lieut, Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Neville, R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Henderson, Lieut,-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Waddington, R.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nuttail, Ellis
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hilton, Cecil
Oakley, T.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Holland, Sir Arthur
Pennefather. Sir John
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Penny. Frederick George
Watts, Dr. T.


Hopkins, J. W. W,
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, S. R.


Hore-Belisha, Leslle
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Perring, Sir William George
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Pielou, D. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pilcher, G.
Wilson, M. J. (York. N. R., Richm'd)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pllditch, Sir Philip
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Power, Sir John Cecil
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Huntingfield, Lord
Preston, William
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Hurd, Percy A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Radford, E. A.
Withers, John James


Ilifle, Sir Edward M.
Ramsden, E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wornersley, W. J.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Jacob. A. E.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Jephcott. A. R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Remer, .J. R.
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rentoul, G. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rice, Sir Frederick



Lamb, J. Q.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Major Hennessy and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)
Bondfield, Margaret


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr. J.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph
Brlant, Frank


Baker. J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Broad, F. A.




Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, I.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smllie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A.(Broxtowe)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davied, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Glbbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gillett George M.
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Westwood. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenail, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, C, P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvii)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James



Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

AIR FORCE ESTIMATES, 1926–27.

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for expenditure in respect of the Air Force Services, namely:—

£


5.
Medical Services
209,000


6.
Educational Services
432,000


7.
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
406,000


8.
Civil Aviation
462,000

£


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
135,000


10.
Air Ministry
761,000


11.
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
245,000




£2,650,000"

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 122.

Division No. 401.]
AYES.
[11.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bennett, A. J
Buckingham, Sir H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bethel, A.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Betterton, Henry B.
Bullock, Captain M.


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Layton)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Allen, J Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Butler. Sir Geoffrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boothhy, R. J. G.
Butt, Sir Alfred


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Apsley, Lord
Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cassels, J. D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Braithwaite, A. N.
Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Balniel, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cazalet, Captains Victor A.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Briscoe, Richard George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir S.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Broun-Llndsay, Major H.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'Ed., Hexham)
Christie, J. A.


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perring, Sir William George


Clarry, Reginald George
Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, Basil E (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, .J. W. W.
Pielou, D. P.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pilcher, G.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Preston, William


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Huntingfield, Lord
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Remer, J. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remnant, Sir James


Daiziel, Sir Davison
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Jacob, A. E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F,(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Davison, Sir W. H, (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


Drewe, C.
Kindersley Major Guy M.
Salmon, Major I.


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanderman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Elveden, Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandon, Lord


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Savery, S. S.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Fermoy, Lord
Looker, Herbert William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fielden, E. B.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Shepperson, E. W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lougher, L.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Forrest, W.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Skelton, A. N.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Storry-Deans, R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Grace, John
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Templeton, W. P.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tinne, .J. A.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Waddington, R.


Hanbury, C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harland, A.
Murchison. C. K.
Warrander, Sir Victor


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, R. J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Capt. R R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pennefather, Sir John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Penny, Frederick George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl




Wise, Sir Fredric
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Withers, John James
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)



Wolmer, Viscount
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Womersley, W. J.
Wragg, Herbert
Major Cope and Lord Stanley.


Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Hudson, .J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Davison, .J. E. (Smethwick)
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Dennison, R.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenail, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Scurr, John
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Sexton, James
Allen Parkinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

AIR EXPENDITURE 1924–25.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1925, that the aggregate expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for these Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net
surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net expenditure is £261,178 12s. 4d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
1,157,353
8
5


Total Deficits
896,174
16
1


Net Surplus
£261,178
12
4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other grants for Air Services."

SCHEDULE.


No of. Vote
Air Services, 1924–Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross 
Expenditure.


Excess of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
143,485
8
0
—
—


2
Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.
—
150,334
14
11
239,328
6
3


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services)
389,829
18
3
—
—


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands
—
145,703
8
9
549,178
2
10


5
Medical Services
—
38,809
16
11
36,847
13
8


6
Education Services
—
5,131
9
11
25,058
3
5


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
—
373
17
9
71,198
8
4


8
Civil Aviation
—
—
152,044
19
2


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
18,206
8
8
42,675
15
9


10
Air Ministry
—
—
8,283
16
5


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, other Non-Effective Services.
—
403
13
2
32,738
2
7


—
Amount written off as Irrecoverable.
3,895
19
9
—
—




537,211
6
0
358,963
10
1
1,157,353
8
5




Total Deficits £896,174
16
1
Total Deficits £896,174
16
1
Total Surpluses £1,157,353
8
5




Net Surpluses £261,178
12
4
Net Surpluses £261,178
12
4
Net Surpluses £261,178
12
4

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Sir Samuel Hoare.]

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to ask for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. This Motion authorises the expenditure by the Air Ministry of money on one head which was allotted for another head. Under Item 3 (Technical and War-like Stores), which includes aeroplane expenditure, there is £389,000 in excess of the Estimate, and I would like the Secretary of Stale for Air to explain what the reason is for this excess of expenditure. The reason why I ask this question is that at the present time we are carrying out an expansion programme, which was outlined by the present Secretary of State for Air in June, and which aims at giving us 82 squadrons. At each stage we have been told that this is necessary because a great air force is being built up within striking distance of our shores, namely, France—

The CHAIRMAN: A discussion on general policy is not in order on this Motion.

Captain BENN: I do not want to open up a general discussion, but I think
I am entitled to ask why the programme estimated for has not been reached, and why the right hon. Gentleman has authorised the expenditure of£400,000 on additional machines. There was a report made to the French Chamber in June which showed that the so-called French expansion programme had not by any means been realised. I do not want to go into details, but this is a matter of great interest. In the report to which I have already referred I observe that 79 per cent, of the engines were 1918 engines—

The CHAIRMAN: The only question to be considered now is why these miscalculations were made, and why these items have to be set off against one another.

Captain BENN: If the Committee votes a certain amount to be spent for a certain purpose and the Air Ministry take advantage that and spend it for another purpose my point is that they can be questioned as to what they are spending it upon. If this is not the proper occasion for questioning such expenditure, I do not know any other. This is obviously a matter that requires further explanation. If we are building
for a one-power standard and it is revealed to us that the one Power we have taken for our standard is not really building to that standard, it is obvious that we are entitled to ask the Minister why he has in that particular year sanctioned an expenditure in excess of that sanctioned by the House of Commons.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): This Vote deals with 1924–25 and therefore the question as to what has been happening in another country is not relevant to this debate.

Captain BENN: This deals with the period from 1920 to 1925 and what I have referred to appeared in the "Times" on the 25th June.

Sir S. HOARE: No. I have not over-looked the report at all. It has only come to the attention either of the Chamber of another country or this House in the last few weeks. Obviously therefore, in the period 1924–5, to which this Vote applies, it could not have been in the mind of anyone. 1924–5 was the year immediately following the announcement of the Home Defence Programme and it was with the general assent of all parties in the House that we progressed as far as we could with that programme, and pressed on with orders for new aircraft and new engines. It is always very difficult to get aircraft and engines delivered. As a matter of fact, we were more successful than we expected and our deliveries were better than we thought they would be at the beginning of the year. That is the sole explanation of the fact that in this Vote we overspent the amount by a considerable sum. It was due to our desire to press on with the Home Defence Programme and the fact that we were more successful in getting deliveries from the aircraft and engine industry than we expected at the beginning of the year.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite met the points my hon. and gallant Friend raised. What baffles me in this document is how it is that, while it was found necessary to spend so much more money on the fighting part of the right hon. Gentleman's charge, he found it possible to spend so much less on the civil part. It seems to me a rather strange coinci-
dence, if it was due merely to the accident of procuring more deliveries of warlike machines, that at the same time there was less expenditure on civil aviation and the Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services. That is a point I do not quite understand. [Interruption.] It is the duty of hon. Members opposite to agree to anything proposed from that Front Bench. Our duty is to criticise and find out if there is any irregularity in the matter. Can we have some explanation of why less was spent on civil aviation? I have always advocated greater expenditure on civil aviation, and I want to know why it is that this expenditure was not proceeded with. Further, there is a specific item that I should like to know about, because we generally find when these little sums of £3,000 or £4,000 are dealt with that there is something very interesting behind them. There is an "amount written off as irrecoverable." That ought not to pass without comment or some sort of explanation. It may not seem a large amount when we are dealing with millions, but there may be something behind it.

Sir S. HOARE: As to civil aviation, I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the surplus of £152,000. That is almost entirely due to the fact that the money was voted for the improving of the Croydon Aerodrome. It was found that we could not proceed with the improvement of the Aerodrome without a Bill, and we had to introduce a Bill. That delayed the Croydon programme by several months, and it explains almost the whole of that sum. With reference to the Meteorological and other Miscellaneous Items, large claims for compensation at home and abroad were repudiated or considerably reduced. Those reasons explain the surplus almost entirely. With regard to the small sum of £3,900 written off as irrecoverable, there is always a sum of that kind in the Service Votes. We do not estimate for any irrecoverable sum, and some irrecoverable sums must mature in the course of the year. I think, with an expenditure running to over £20,000,000, that is a very small sum for irrecoverables and other claims to be inserted in the Estimates.

Captain BENN: Here was the year 1924–5 in which the right hon. Gentleman
himself moved a Motion urging more Air expenditure because of the expenditure in other countries. Now, as the facts are known, I am surprised to hear that they came to his notice for the first time in the "Times." I should have thought that his Department would know of them. Now we know that while he was moving for a larger expenditure because of this menace, the menace did not exist.

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot enter into a discussion with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a question of that kind, but I must contradict the whole basis of his argument. The Air Force programme is as fully justified to-day as it was then.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, the sum of £248,279,395 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.